MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126729201 · doi:10.3132/dvdr.2009.006

Metabolic syndrome and its single traits as risk factors for diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance: the STOP-NIDDM trial

2009· article· en· W2126729201 on OpenAlexaff
M Hanefeld, Avraham Karasik, Carsta Koehler, Torsten Westermeier, Jean‐Louis Chiasson

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes and Vascular Disease Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcarboseMedicineImpaired glucose toleranceInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusMetabolic syndromePlaceboImpaired fasting glucoseIncidence (geometry)Number needed to treatType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyConfidence intervalRelative riskPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The STOP-NIDDM trial was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised study in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). They were treated with an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, acarbose, to prevent diabetes; the overall number needed to treat (NNT) was 11. In a secondary analysis, we considered the impact of single traits and overall metabolic syndrome (MetS) respectively on risk of diabetes and NNT respectively. In all, there were 1,368 patients. They were followed up for 3.3 years, and the prevalence of MetS was 61%. Multivariate analysis revealed treatment group 2-hour (post-challenge) plasma glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C), triglycerides and leukocyte count as independent predictors. The annual incidence of diabetes in the placebo group with MetS was 18.7% vs. 11.2% in patients without MetS; the corresponding figures in the acarbose group were 13.5% and 9.4%, respectively. The NNT in patients was 5.8 in patients with MetS and 16.5 in those without MetS. In conclusion, most single traits and overall MetS label a very high-risk group in people with IGT. People with MetS reach a NNT to prevent development of new diabetes with acarbose of 5.8.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes and Vascular Disease ResearchSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207