Meal‐induced increases in C‐reactive protein, interleukin‐6 and tumour necrosis factor α are attenuated by prandial + basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine if a regimen with prandial + basal insulin compared with basal insulin attenuates post-meal inflammatory and glycative biomarkers in patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This test-meal sub-study in the USA is from a previously reported clinical trial comparing the effect on glycaemic control of 24 weeks of thrice-daily pre-meal insulin lispro mix 50 (50% insulin lispro, 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension) or bedtime insulin glargine, both plus metformin. In the sub-study, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α, interleukin-6, methylglyoxal and 3-deoxyglucosone were measured during the post-meal period of a mixed-meal breakfast at the final visit. Prandial + basal (n = 25) and basal (n = 21) insulin were administered at the same times as during the previous 24 weeks. RESULTS: Post-meal, the prandial + basal insulin group had significantly higher insulin, lower glucose and triglycerides, as well as lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin-6, than the basal insulin group. Glucose incremental area under the concentration curve significantly correlated with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor α, interleukin-6, methylglyoxal and 3-deoxyglucosone incremental area under the concentration curve. Insulin incremental area under the concentration curve correlated inversely with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor α incremental area under the concentration curve. However, after adjusting for glucose incremental area under the concentration curve, these inverse correlations were no longer significant. Triglyceride incremental area under the concentration curve was not correlated with any biomarker incremental area under the concentration curve. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling post-meal hyperglycaemia with prandial + basal insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes attenuates meal-induced increases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor α compared with basal insulin. The rise in post-meal glucose, but not triglycerides, significantly correlated with the rise in post-meal inflammatory and glycative biomarkers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".