Treatment of Diabetes mellitus by Diet Alone versus Oral Hypoglycemics versus Insulin and Outcome after Successful Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine whether the outcomes of diabetic patients after successful percutaneous coronary revascularization are influenced by the modality of treatment for hyperglycemia at the time of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Design: Retrospective analysis of the Mayo Clinic PTCA Registry. Material and Methods: We examined whether the modality of treatment of diabetes mellitus (diet alone vs. oral hypoglycemics vs. insulin) impacted on the occurrence of death and death/myocardial infarction among diabetic patients after successful percutaneous coronary revascularization from January 1, 1995 through December 1998. Results: Of the 821 diabetic patients with known treatment status, 129 received diet alone, 370 oral agents, and 322 insulin. The clinical success rates of percutaneous coronary revascularization were similarly high among the groups (>90%). The adjusted risk of suffering either death or death/myocardial infarction after successful percutaneous coronary revascularization was greater for insulin-treated patients (vs. non-insulin): relative risk (95% confidence intervals) of 1.65 (0.99, 2.72) and 1.65 (1.20, 2.27), respectively. Patients treated with oral agents had lower risk of suffering death or death/myocardial infarction than insulin-treated patients (0.59 [0.36, 0.99] and 0.57 [0.38, 0.84], respectively), with a similar trend for patients on diet alone (0.96 [0.48, 1.99] and 0.65 [0.36, 1.16], respectively). Conclusions: Although the clinical success rates of PCR were similar for insulin- and non-insulin-treated diabetic patients, insulin-treated patients had worse long-term outcomes after successful percutaneous coronary revascularization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".