Effect of acarbose on insulin sensitivity in elderly patients with diabetes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of acarbose, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, on insulin release and insulin sensitivity in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly treated in a double-blind fashion with placebo (n = 23) or acarbose (n = 22) for 12 months. Before and after randomization, subjects underwent a meal tolerance test and a hyperglycemic glucose clamp study designed to measure insulin release and sensitivity. RESULTS: After 12 months of therapy there was a significant difference in the change in fasting plasma glucose levels (0.2 +/- 0.3 vs. -0.5 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, placebo vs. acarbose group, respectively; P < 0.05) and in incremental postprandial glucose values (-0.4 +/- 0.6 vs. -3.5 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, placebo vs. acarbose group, P < 0.001) between groups. There was a significant difference in the change in HbA(1c) values in response to treatment (0.4 +/- 0.2 vs. -0.4 +/- 0.1%, placebo vs. acarbose group, P < 0.01). The change in fasting insulin in response to treatment (-2 +/- 2 vs. -13 +/- 4 pmol/l, placebo vs. acarbose group, P < 0.05) and incremental postprandial insulin responses (-89 +/- 26 vs. -271 +/- 59 pmol/l, placebo vs. acarbose group, P < 0.01) was also significantly different between groups. During the hyperglycemic clamps, glucose and insulin values were similar in both groups before and after therapy However, there was a significant difference in the change in insulin sensitivity in response to treatment between the placebo and the acarbose groups (0.001 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.004 +/- 0.001 mg/kg x min(-1) [pmol/l](-1), respectively, P < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose increases insulin sensitivity but not insulin release in elderly patients with 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".