Randomized trial showing efficacy and safety of twice‐daily remogliflozin etabonate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the efficacy of twice-daily doses of remogliflozin etabonate (RE) and once-daily pioglitazone with placebo for reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration. In this 12-week, double-blind, randomized, active- and placebo-controlled trial, 336 treatment-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7.0-9.5% (53-80 mmol/mol) were randomized to RE (50, 100, 250, 500 or 1000 mg twice daily), matching placebo or 30 mg pioglitazone once daily. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline. Other endpoints included changes in body weight, lipid levels, safety and tolerability. RE produced a decreasing dose response in HbA1c at week 12 (p < 0.001), with reductions in HbA1c versus placebo ranging from 0.64 to 1.07% (p < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions in body weight for RE compared with placebo were also observed. Twice-daily RE resulted in a dose-ordered improvement in glycaemic control and was generally well tolerated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".