A comparison of insulin aspart and regular insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin aspart in elderly patients with diabetes. METHODS: Studies were conducted in elderly patients with diabetes (n = 19, M/F 10/9, age 72 +/- 1 years, BMI 27 +/- 1 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 6.4 +/- 0.1%, diabetes duration < 5 years). Nine patients were treated with metformin, and ten with diet. Subjects underwent 2 studies in random order. In one study, 0.1 u/kg of novolin R (Novo Nordisk, Copenhagen, Denmark) was administered at 7:30 am. Thirty minutes later, at time 0, subjects were given 235 ml of ensure with fibre. The other study was identical to the first except that insulin aspart (Novorapid, Novo Nordisk, Copenhagen, Denmark) 0.1 u/kg was given at time zero. Insulin and glucose valuves were measured as at regular intervals. RESULTS: Insulin and glucose profiles were nearly identical with insulin aspart and regular human insulin. The AUC for glucose (aspart: 6.9 +/- 0.1 mM; regular: 7.1 +/- 0.1 mM, p = ns) and insulin (aspart: 335 +/- 30 pM; regular: 330 +/- 25 pM, p = ns) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin aspart appears to act similarly to regular human insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".