MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056758832 · doi:10.1136/ebm.6.3.79

Glyburide was as safe and effective as insulin in gestational diabetes

2001· article· en· W2056758832 on OpenAlexaff
EM Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestational diabetesMedicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinWeb of scienceGestationPregnancyInternal medicineObstetricsGynecologyEndocrinologyGastroenterologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2000) N Engl J Med 343, 1134. Langer O, Conway DL, Berkus MD, et al. . A comparison of glyburide and insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. . Oct 19; . : . –8. . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Is glyburide as effective and safe as insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus? Randomised (allocation concealed*), unblinded,* controlled trial. Maternal health clinics in San Antonio, Texas, USA. 404 women (mean age 29.5 y) who were between 11 and 33 weeks of gestation with a singleton pregnancy and who had gestational diabetes and fasting blood glucose concentrations ≥5.3 mmol/l and <7.8 mmol/l. Follow up was 100%. 404 women were allocated to receive glyburide (n=201) or insulin (n=203). Glyburide was started at an oral dose of 2.5 mg and increased to 20 mg as needed. Insulin was started at a dose of 0.7 U/kg of actual body weight, given subcutaneously 3 times/day, and increased as needed. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DLanger%26rft.auinit1%253DO.%26rft.volume%253D343%26rft.issue%253D16%26rft.spage%253D1134%26rft.epage%253D1138%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BComparison%2Bof%2BGlyburide%2Band%2BInsulin%2Bin%2BWomen%2Bwith%2BGestational%2BDiabetes%2BMellitus%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJM200010193431601%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11036118%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJM200010193431601&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11036118&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F3%2F79.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000089882800001&link_type=ISI

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: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models splitAgreement 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNon-randomized trial · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207