Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most recent meta-analyses of morbidity-mortality risk hazards brought about by the presence of diabetes as compared with non-diabetics underline the dominant risk of renal disease and cardiovascular outcomes and the relevance of blood glucose, blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol levels. The translation of this reality into therapeutic guidelines always requires interventional evidence. Evidence for combined approaches in controlling for BP and blood glucose was provided by Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx and DiamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE), conducted in over 11 000 subjects from 20 countries. Reduction in systolic BP by 7.1 mm Hg, in diastolic BP by 2.9 mm Hg and in glycated haemoglobin A1c by 0.61% points in the combined routine BP lowering and intensive blood glucose-control group after an average 4.3 years of follow-up resulted in a relative risk reduction of 28% in renal events, 24% in cardiovascular death and 18% in all-cause mortality. While other major intervention trials performed in similar populations with analogous goals did not achieve the same level of positive therapeutic evidence and even pointed to some risk of intensified treatment of type 2 diabetes, all three major studies [Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD), Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) and ADVANCE] showed significant reduction in renal events, the major risk in type 2 diabetes. The divergence for other outcomes underlines the importance of considering specific therapeutic approaches for glucose control and prudent targets for BP. The current target values for glycated haemoglobin of 6.5-7% and for BP of 130/80 mmHg appear safe and beneficial. The potential long-term benefit, particularly that of initial tight blood glucose control, suggested by recent post-trial evidence is currently being evaluated in the ADVANCE-ON study.
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 | 0.036 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.009 |
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".