MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006165608 · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16107

Association Between 7 Years of Intensive Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes and Long-term Mortality

2015· article· en· W2006165608 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trevor J. Orchard, David M. Nathan, Bernard Zinman, Patricia A. Cleary, David J. Brillon, Jye‐Yu C. Backlund, John M. Lachin

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicDiabetes mellitusHypoglycemiaType 1 diabetesIntensive careEpidemiologyPediatricsCohortObservational studyCohort studyType 2 diabetesInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Whether mortality in type 1 diabetes mellitus is affected following intensive glycemic therapy has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mortality differed between the original intensive and conventional treatment groups in the long-term follow-up of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After the DCCT (1983-1993) ended, participants were followed up in a multisite (27 US and Canadian academic clinical centers) observational study (Epidemiology of Diabetes Control and Complications [EDIC]) until December 31, 2012. Participants were 1441 healthy volunteers with diabetes mellitus who, at baseline, were 13 to 39 years of age with 1 to 15 years of diabetes duration and no or early microvascular complications, and without hypertension, preexisting cardiovascular disease, or other potentially life-threatening disease. INTERVENTIONS AND EXPOSURES: During the clinical trial, participants were randomly assigned to receive intensive therapy (n = 711) aimed at achieving glycemia as close to the nondiabetic range as safely possible, or conventional therapy (n = 730) with the goal of avoiding symptomatic hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. At the end of the DCCT, after a mean of 6.5 years, intensive therapy was taught and recommended to all participants and diabetes care was returned to personal physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total and cause-specific mortality was assessed through annual contact with family and friends and through records over 27 years' mean follow-up. RESULTS: Vital status was ascertained for 1429 (99.2%) participants. There were 107 deaths, 64 in the conventional and 43 in the intensive group. The absolute risk difference was -109 per 100,000 patient-years (95% CI, -218 to -1), with lower all-cause mortality risk in the intensive therapy group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.99]; P = .045). Primary causes of death were cardiovascular disease (24 deaths; 22.4%), cancer (21 deaths; 19.6%), acute diabetes complications (19 deaths; 17.8%), and accidents or suicide (18 deaths; 16.8%). Higher levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were associated with all-cause mortality (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.35-1.81 per 10% relative increase in HbA1c]; P < .001), as well as the development of albuminuria (HR = 2.20 [95% CI, 1.46-3.31]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After a mean of 27 years' follow-up of patients with type 1 diabetes, 6.5 years of initial intensive diabetes therapy was associated with a modestly lower all-cause mortality rate when compared with conventional therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00360815 and NCT00360893.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations436
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207