MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005759075 · doi:10.1586/17512433.2013.842465

Optimizing glycemic control: lixisenatide and basal insulin in combination therapy for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus

2013· review· en· W2005759075 on OpenAlex
Ronnie Aronson

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

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicLixisenatidePostprandialInternal medicineHypoglycemiaType 2 Diabetes MellitusEndocrinologyBasal (medicine)Diabetes mellitusInsulinType 2 diabetesBasal insulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite availability of new treatments for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), optimal management of glycemic control remains challenging. Treatment with basal insulin can improve HbA1c, but may not be sufficient to control postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) levels. Both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and PPG levels contribute to overall glycemic control. In patients with moderate hyperglycemia, PPG excursions have a greater contribution to overall hyperglycemia, with this contribution being greatest when HbA1c is approximately 7-8% [1] . Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have been designed to restore and maintain GLP-1 levels and attenuate PPG excursions. GLP-1RAs that predominantly affect PPG may complement the FPG lowering provided by basal insulin, possibly improving overall glycemic control without additional weight gain and with limited incidence of hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide as an add-on to basal insulin lowers PPG levels, improves HbA1c control and has a beneficial effect on weight in T2DM patients.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.375 · 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