MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977530623 · doi:10.2337/dc11-0996

The Impact of Frequent and Unrecognized Hypoglycemia on Mortality in the ACCORD Study

2011· article· en· W1977530623 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 Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineHypoglycemiaDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicinePediatricsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between frequent and unrecognized hypoglycemia and mortality in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 10,096 ACCORD study participants with follow-up for both hypoglycemia and mortality were included. Hazard ratios (95% CIs) relating the risk of death to the updated annualized number of hypoglycemic episodes and the updated annualized number of intervals with unrecognized hypoglycemia were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression models, allowing for these hypoglycemia variables as time-dependent covariates and controlling for the baseline covariates. RESULTS: Participants in the intensive group reported a mean of 1.06 hypoglycemic episodes (self-monitored blood glucose <70 mg/dL or <3.9 mmol/L) in the 7 days preceding their regular 4-month visit, whereas participants in the standard group reported an average of 0.29 episodes. Unrecognized hypoglycemia was reported, on average, at 5.8% of the intensive group 4-month visits and 2.6% of the standard group visits. Hazard ratios for mortality in models including frequency of hypoglycemic episodes were 0.93 (95% CI 0.9-0.97; P < 0.001) for participants in the intensive group and 0.98 (0.91-1.06; P = 0.615) for participants in the standard group. The hazard ratios for mortality in models, including unrecognized hypoglycemia, were not statistically significant for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Recognized and unrecognized hypoglycemia was more common in the intensive group than in the standard group. In the intensive group of the ACCORD study, a small but statistically significant inverse relationship of uncertain clinical importance was identified between the number of hypoglycemic episodes and the risk of death among participants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.288 · 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