MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971109697 · doi:10.1136/ebn.10.2.49

Review: inhaled insulin provides better glycaemic control than oral hypoglycaemic agents but not better than subcutaneous insulin

2007· letter· en· W1971109697 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Bornais

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulinMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ceglia L, Lau J, Pittas AG. Meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin therapy in adults with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:665–75.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with diabetes, what is the relative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of inhaled insulin compared with subcutaneous (SC) insulin and oral hypoglycaemic agents? ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: Medline (June 2006), Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (Issue 2, 2006), reference lists, and the US Food and Drug Administration web site. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: English language randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared inhaled insulin with SC insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents in non-pregnant adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and had a duration ⩾12 weeks. 16 RCTs (n = 4023, mean age range 29–60 y, 58% men) met the selection criteria. Methodological quality was assessed based on randomisation … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.aulast%253DCeglia%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D145%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D665%26rft.epage%253D675%26rft.atitle%253DMeta-Analysis%253A%2BEfficacy%2Band%2BSafety%2Bof%2BInhaled%2BInsulin%2BTherapy%2Bin%2BAdults%2Bwith%2BDiabetes%2BMellitus%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-145-9-200611070-00009%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17088580%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-145-9-200611070-00009&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17088580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F2%2F49.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241707800005&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207