Review: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are beneficial in type 1 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria regardless of baseline risk factor status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2001) Ann Intern Med 134, 370. The ACE Inhibitors in Diabetic Nephropathy Trialist Group. . Should all patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria receive angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A meta-analysis of individual patient data. . Mar 6; . : . –9 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria, what is the effect of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors independent of confounding variables? Studies were identified by searching Medline and bibliographies of relevant papers and by contacting authors. Studies were selected if they included ≥10 patients with type 1 diabetes and microalbuminuria (defined as having an albumin excretion rate of 20 to 200 μg/minute, or approximately 30 to 300 mg/day, who were judged not to be hypertensive at the time of the original trial), had a placebo or non-intervention control group, had follow up ≥1 year, and measured albumin excretion rate at baseline and at ≥1 follow up visit. Authors were contacted to provide individual patient data on age, duration of diabetes, sex, baseline treatment assignment, albumin excretion rate at baseline and follow up, blood pressure, and glycaemic control. 12 studies … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.issn%253D0003-4819%26rft.aulast%253DThe%2BACE%2BInhibitors%2Bin%2BDiabetic%2BNephropathy%2BTrialis%26rft.auinit1%253D%2B%26rft.volume%253D134%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D370%26rft.epage%253D379%26rft.atitle%253DShould%2BAll%2BPatients%2Bwith%2BType%2B1%2BDiabetes%2BMellitus%2Band%2BMicroalbuminuria%2BReceive%2BAngiotensin-Converting%2BEnzyme%2BInhibitors%253F%2BA%2BMeta-Analysis%2Bof%2BIndividual%2BPatient%2BData%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-134-5-200103060-00009%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11242497%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=10.7326/0003-4819-134-5-200103060-00009&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11242497&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F5%2F146.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167190200003&link_type=ISI
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: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".