MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1658549429 · doi:10.1111/dom.12032

Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre‐planned meta‐analysis of phase 3 trials

2012· review· en· W1658549429 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulin degludecInsulin glargineMedicineInternal medicineInsulinPopulationDiabetes mellitusHypoglycemiaRelative riskType 1 diabetesRandomized controlled trialEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Hypoglycaemia and the fear of hypoglycaemia are barriers to achieving normoglycaemia with insulin. Insulin degludec (IDeg) has an ultra-long and stable glucose-lowering effect, with low day-to-day variability. This pre-planned meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate the superiority of IDeg over insulin glargine (IGlar) in terms of fewer hypoglycaemic episodes at equivalent HbA1c in type 2 and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T2DM/T1DM). METHODS: Pooled patient-level data for self-reported hypoglycaemia from all seven (five in T2DM and two in T1DM) randomized, controlled, phase 3a, treat-to-target trials in the IDeg clinical development programme comparing IDeg once-daily (OD) vs. IGlar OD were analysed. RESULTS: Four thousand three hundred and thirty subjects (2899 IDeg OD vs. 1431 IGlar OD) were analysed. Among insulin-naïve T2DM subjects, significantly lower rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were reported with IDeg vs. IGlar: estimated rate ratio (RR):0.83[0.70;0.98](95%) (CI) , RR:0.64[0.48;0.86](95%) (CI) and RR:0.14[0.03;0.70](95%) (CI) . In the overall T2DM population, significantly lower rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed episodes were reported with IDeg vs. IGlar [RR:0.83[0.74;0.94](95%) (CI) and RR:0.68[0.57;0.82](95%) (CI) ). In the T1DM population, the rate of nocturnal confirmed episodes was significantly lower with IDeg vs. IGlar during maintenance treatment (RR:0.75[0.60;0.94](95%) (CI) ). Reduction in hypoglycaemia with IDeg vs. IGlar was more pronounced during maintenance treatment in all populations. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of this study include the open-label design and exclusion of subjects with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia. This meta-analysis confirms that similar improvements in HbA1c can be achieved with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, particularly nocturnal episodes, with IDeg vs. IGlar across a broad spectrum of patients with diabetes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it