MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin detemir in basal‐bolus therapy in patients with Type 1 diabetes

2010· article· en· W2068519221 on OpenAlexaff
Antônio Roberto Chacra, Mark Kipnes, Liza L. Ilag, Samiha Sarwat, Joseph M. Giaconia, John Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineInsulin detemirInternal medicineInsulin lisproEndocrinologyInsulinDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesProtamineType 2 diabetesBasal (medicine)GlycemicInsulin glargine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The efficacy of two basal insulins, insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin detemir, was compared in basal-bolus regimens in Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 32-week, multinational, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, adult patients with Type 1 diabetes received ILPS or insulin detemir, injected twice daily (before breakfast and bedtime) and prandial insulin lispro three times daily. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to endpoint. RESULTS: Least squares mean (+/-se) changes in HbA(1c) were similar between groups, meeting non-inferiority (margin, 0.4%): -0.69 +/- 0.07% for ILPS and -0.59 +/- 0.07% for insulin detemir [between-treatment difference -0.10%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29, 0.10]. Standard deviation of fasting blood glucose was similar (non-inferiority margin 0.8 mmol/l): 2.74 +/- 0.14 mmol/l for ILPS and 2.38 +/- 0.14 mmol/l for insulin detemir (CI -0.03, 0.75). Patients on ILPS gained more weight (1.59 +/- 0.23 kg vs. 0.62 +/- 0.24 kg; CI 0.34, 1.60; margin 1.5 kg). Weight-adjusted daily total and prandial insulin doses were lower for ILPS (prandial insulin, 0.38 +/- 0.01 U/kg/day for ILPS, 0.44 +/- 0.01 U/kg/day for insulin detemir; P = 0.004); daily basal insulin dose was similar. All hypoglycaemia incidence and rate and nocturnal hypoglycaemia incidence were similar between groups; nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was lower for insulin detemir (mean +/- sd 0.79 +/- 1.23 for ILPS, 0.49 +/- 0.85 for insulin detemir; P = 0.001). Severe hypoglycaemia rate was 0.03 +/- 0.11 for ILPS and 0.02 +/- 0.10 for insulin detemir (P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: ILPS-treated patients with Type 1 diabetes achieved similar glycaemic control as insulin detemir-treated patients after 32 weeks. Glucose variability was similar. While weight gain and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate were statistically higher with ILPS, the clinical relevance is unclear.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNon-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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207