MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Earlier intervention in type 2 diabetes: The case for achieving early and sustained glycaemic control

2005· review· en· W2116285515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineType 2 diabetesIntervention (counseling)Intensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusDiseaseClinical trialType 1 diabetesRandomized controlled trialPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineEndocrinologyPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In type 2 diabetes, the onset and progression of complications is significantly delayed by improving glycaemic control. However, the proportion of patients reaching and sustaining guideline recommendations for glycaemic targets remains unacceptably low. Recent clinical trials and predictive physiologically based mathematical simulations (Archimedes model) indicate that benefits can be enhanced with earlier intervention and timely achievement of glycaemic targets. This article reviews the evidence for early intervention, showing that intensive approaches, including earlier introduction of combination therapy, allow more patients to achieve glycaemic targets and hence reduce complications and delay disease progression.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.409 · 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