Insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study compared the effect of insulin detemir on glycaemic control (HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose and variability thereof) with that of Neutral Protamine Hagedorn human isophane (NPH) insulin, both combined with insulin aspart, in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, and compared the safety of these treatments. METHODS: In this 26-week, open-label, randomized (2 : 1), parallel-group study, 347 (140 prepubertal and 207 pubertal) children with Type 1 diabetes, aged 6-17 years, received insulin detemir (n = 232) or NPH insulin (n = 115) once or twice daily, according to the prestudy regimen, plus premeal insulin aspart. RESULTS: The mean HbA(1c) decreased by approximately 0.8% with both treatments. After 26 weeks, the mean difference in HbA(1c) was 0.1% (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.3) (insulin detemir 8.0%, NPH insulin 7.9%). Within-subject variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose was significantly lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (SD 3.3 vs. 4.3, P < 0.001), as was mean fasting plasma glucose (8.4 vs. 9.6 mmol/l, P = 0.022). The risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (22.00-07.00 h) was 26% lower with insulin detemir (P = 0.041) and the risk of 24-h hypoglycaemia was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.351). The mean body mass index (BMI) Z-score was lower with insulin detemir (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Basal-bolus treatment with insulin detemir or NPH insulin and premeal insulin aspart in children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes mellitus improved HbA(1c) to a similar degree. The lower and more predictable fasting plasma glucose, lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia and lower BMI observed with insulin detemir are clinically significant advantages compared with NPH insulin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".