MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013726063 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.4.108

Review: lifestyle or pharmacological interventions prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in impaired glucose tolerance

2007· letter· en· W2013726063 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit Bhagra, Scott A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpaired glucose toleranceType 2 diabetesMedicinePsychological interventionDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gillies CL, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, et al . Pharmacological and lifestyle interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007;334:299. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In persons with impaired glucose tolerance, do lifestyle or pharmacological interventions prevent or delay type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM)? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★★☆ Obesity—physician ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][3] Data sources: Medline (1966 to July 2006), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980 to July 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2006), references of relevant articles, and experts in the field. ### ![Graphic][4] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated an intervention to delay or prevent type 2 DM in persons with impaired glucose tolerance and had an outcome measurement of diabetes. 21 RCTs met the selection criteria, and 17 RCTs … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.39063.689375.55%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17237299%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=334/7588/299&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F4%2F108.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.402
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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207