Effects of Insulin Glargine and Liraglutide Therapy on Liver Fat as Measured by Magnetic Resonance in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study determined the effects of insulin versus liraglutide therapy on liver fat in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral agents therapy, including metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic medications were randomized to receive insulin glargine or liraglutide therapy for 12 weeks. The liver proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was measured by MRS. The mean liver PDFF, the total liver volume, and the total liver fat index were measured by MRI. The Student t test, the Fisher exact test, and repeated-measures ANOVA were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Insulin treatment was associated with a significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin (7.9% to 7.2% [62.5 to 55.2 mmol/mol], P = 0.005), a trend toward a decrease in MRS-PDFF (12.6% to 9.9%, P = 0.06), and a significant decrease in liver mean MRI-PDFF (13.8% to 10.6%, P = 0.005), liver volume (2,010.6 to 1,858.7 mL, P = 0.01), and the total liver fat index (304.4 vs. 209.3 % ⋅ mL, P = 0.01). Liraglutide treatment was also associated with a significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin (7.6% to 6.7% [59.8 to 50.2 mmol/mol], P < 0.001) but did not change MRS-PDFF (P = 0.80), liver mean MRI-PDFF (P = 0.15), liver volume (P = 0.30), or the total liver fat index (P = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of insulin glargine therapy reduced the liver fat burden in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the improvements in the liver fat fraction and glycemia control were not significantly different from those in the liraglutide group.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".