MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W204954543

Controlling blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. An evidence-based policy statement by the American Academy of Family Physicians and American Diabetes Association.

2000· article· en· W204954543 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Woolf, Mayer B. Davidson, Sheldon Greenfield, H. Bell, Théodore G. Ganiats, Michael D. Hagen, Valerie A. Palda, Robert A. Rizza, Stephen J. Spann

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicGlycated hemoglobinRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusHypoglycemiaFamily medicineClinical trialMEDLINEType 2 Diabetes MellitusObservational studyEvidence-based medicineIntensive care medicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineAlternative medicineEndocrinologyPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review evidence about the benefit of intensive glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes and to develop practice recommendations. PARTICIPANTS: A 9-member panel composed of family physicians, general internists, endocrinologists, and a practice guidelines methodologist was assembled by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Diabetes Association, and the American College of Physicians. EVIDENCE: Admissible evidence included published randomized controlled trials and observational studies regarding the effects of glycemic control on microvascular and macrovascular complications and on adverse effects. We followed systematic search and data abstraction procedures. Greater weight was given to clinical trials and to evidence about health outcomes. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Interpretations of evidence and approval of documents were finalized by unanimous vote, with recommendations linked to evidence and not expert opinion. The full report was prepared by the chair and 2 panel members, representing each of the 3 organizations. The initial draft underwent external review by 14 diabetologists and family physicians and changes consistent with the evidence were incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence demonstrates that the risk of microvascular and neuropathic complications is reduced by lowering glucose concentrations. Whether glycemic control affects macrovascular outcomes is less clear. The potential benefits of glycemic control must be balanced against factors that either preempt benefits (eg, limited life expectancy, comorbid disease) or increase risk (eg, severe hypoglycemia). The magnitude of benefit is a function of individual clinical variables (eg, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, presence of preexisting microvascular disease). Appropriate targets for treatment should be determined by considering these factors, patients' risk profiles, and personal preferences.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→