MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997586858 · doi:10.1111/dom.12068

Newer insulin analogs: advances in basal insulin replacement

2013· review· en· W1997586858 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteDiabetes CanadaUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNovo NordiskAmylin PharmaceuticalsAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsInsulinInsulin degludecInsulin lisproInsulin analogMedicineTolerabilityBasal (medicine)Insulin glargineDiabetes mellitusBasal insulinType 2 diabetesInternal medicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyHypoglycemiaHuman insulinAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basal insulin analog therapy is the most common method of introducing insulin replacement therapy for the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Long-acting insulin analogs provide relatively peakless and more physiologic insulin replacement therapy than neutral protaminated Hagedorn insulin. Recently 2 new basal insulin analogs have been developed with superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties; insulin degludec and a pegylated insulin lispro. These agents are generally well tolerated and have been evaluated in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In this article we review the results of clinical trials assessing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of these newer longer-acting insulin analogs. In general rates of hypoglycaemia in these trials were low, glucose control was comparable to currently available basal insulin analogs, and rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly and substantially lower. While further study will be required, advances in basal insulin replacement may offer important advantages over existing options for starting insulin strategies.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207