Effect of Repaglinide Versus Glyburide on Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Values in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: studies in younger patients with diabetes have shown that insulin profiles are more physiologic and postprandial glucose levels are lower with repaglinide than with glyburide. We conducted this study to determine if the differences in insulin/glucose profiles between repaglinide and glyburide were similar or different in the elderly. METHODS: thirteen elderly patients with diabetes were given glyburide or repaglinide in randomized crossover design, followed by a meal tolerance test. Samples were taken at regular intervals to measure glucose and insulin values. RESULTS: the 0-30 min area under the curve (AUC) for insulin was higher (glyburide, 294 ± 37 pM; repaglinide, 382 ± 39 pM) (P < 0.01), and the 180-240 min AUC for insulin was lower (glyburide, 325 ± 50 pM; repaglinide, 196 ± 20 pM) (P < 0.01) with repaglinide. The 0-240 min AUC for glucose was not different between treatments (glyburide, 7.4 ± 0.5 mM; repaglinide, 7.1 ± 0.3 mM) (P = not significant). Five subjects treated with glyburide and no subjects treated with repaglinide required glucose from 180 to 240 min (P < 0.05, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: we conclude that repaglinide results in a more physiologic insulin profile and less frequent hypoglycemia than glyburide in the elderly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".