MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104847526 · doi:10.1136/ebn.12.1.4

To lower or not to lower? Making sense of the latest research on intensive glycaemic control and cardiovascular outcomes

2008· article· en· W2104847526 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Sherifali, Zubin Punthakee

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusUnited Kingdom Prospective Diabetes StudyIntensive care medicineClinical trialPopulationDiseaseType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialConfusionGlycated haemoglobinInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes is an extremely burdensome and costly chronic disease. It affects an estimated 4–6% of the world’s population, and its prevalence continues to rise.1 ,2 Diabetes is a major cause of blindness, end stage renal disease, and cardiovascular complications, all of which are preventable.3 ,4 Clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetes emphasise the importance of optimal glycaemic control. Specifically, some clinical practice guidelines have suggested targeting a glycated haemoglobin (Hb) A1c concentration ⩽7%, or ⩽6% for those able to safely achieve it.5 With the recent publication of 3 notable trials, a great deal of debate and confusion has been created about the cardiovascular effects of lowering glucose to near-normal concentrations in people with type 2 diabetes. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Damicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, and the 10-year follow-up of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) provide complementary information about cardiovascular risk reduction with glucose lowering that can be used to help patients to develop evidence-based goals of therapy individualised to their own circumstances. See abstracts in this issue on pages 12–14. ACCORD, ADVANCE, and the 10-year follow-up of the UKPDS all reported the effects of intensive glucose lowering on vascular outcomes.6–8 All 3 studies were randomised controlled trials, with an intensive glucose-lowering group and a “standard” control group with less stringent glycaemic targets. The trials differed in many respects (table 1) that may help to reconcile the differences in results (table 2). View this table: Table 1 Study and patient characteristics* View this table: Table 2 Summary of study findings* ### Participants and duration of follow-up There were important differences in the types of participants recruited and the duration of follow-up. ACCORD enrolled >10 000 patients starting in 2001 and followed them for a median of 3.4 years, at which point the intervention was …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207