Review: inhaled insulin provided better glycaemic control than oral hypoglycaemic agents but not subcutaneous insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ceglia L, Lau J, Pittas AG. Meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin therapy in adults with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:665–75. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In patients with diabetes, what is the relative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of inhaled insulin compared with subcutaneous (SC) insulin and oral hypoglycaemic agents? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★★ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Data sources: Medline (to June 2006), Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (issue 2, 2006), reference lists, and the US Food and Drug Administration website. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ⩾12 weeks’ duration that compared inhaled insulin with SC insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents in non-pregnant adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. 16 RCTs (n = 4023, mean age range 29–60 y, 58% men) met the selection criteria. Methodological quality was assessed based on randomisation method, intention to treat analysis, dropout rate, and primary outcome (efficacy or safety). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Outcomes: change in haemoglobin … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.issn%253D0003-4819%26rft.aulast%253DCeglia%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D145%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D665%26rft.epage%253D675%26rft.atitle%253DMeta-Analysis%253A%2BEfficacy%2Band%2BSafety%2Bof%2BInhaled%2BInsulin%2BTherapy%2Bin%2BAdults%2Bwith%2BDiabetes%2BMellitus%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17088580%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=17088580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F2%2F52.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241707800005&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".