MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1851216557

L’étude DREAM : la prévention du diabète, rêve ou réalité

2007· article· fr· W1851216557 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Comtois

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyHumanitiesMedicineArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interventions : Tous les patients âges de 30 ans et plus se presentant a l’un des 191 sites participants etaient soumis a un test de tolerance au glucose (75 g glucose oral), a la suite de quoi on etablissait leur admissibilite a l’etude. Les patients admissibles etaient alors soumis a la phase d’essai de 17 jours avec placebo a simple aveugle. Les participants admissibles, consentants et ayant pris au moins 80 % des doses lors de la phase d’essai etaient enroles dans l’etude et randomises. La repartition aleatoire de style 2 x 2 attribuait les participants soit au groupe rosiglitazone (4 mg die pour les deux premiers mois et ensuite 8 mg die) ou placebo, soit au groupe ramipril (5 mg die pour les deux premiers mois, 10 mg die par la suite et 15 mg die apres 1 an) ou placebo. Les patients ont ete suivis pour une duree moyenne de trois ans, avec une visite deux mois et six mois apres la repartition aleatoire et tous les six mois par la suite. Lors de chacune des visites, on rappelait aux patients l’importance d’avoir de saines habitudes de vie ainsi qu’une diete appropriee, et on procedait aussi a une evaluation et a un renforcement de l’observance. On mesurait chaque annee la glycemie a jeun et l’hemoglobine glyquee. Apres deux ans et a la visite finale, on realisait un test de tolerance au glucose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→