MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133980496 · doi:10.1177/1479164115570301

Design and baseline characteristics of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA <sup>®</sup> )

2015· article· en· W2133980496 on OpenAlexaff
Nikolaus Marx, Julio Rosenstock, Steven E. Kahn, Bernard Zinman, John J.P. Kastelein, John M. Lachin, Mark A. Espeland, Erich Bluhmki, Michaela Mattheus, Bart Ryckaert, Sanjay Patel, Odd Erik Johansen, Hans‐Juergen Woerle

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes and Vascular Disease Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsGlimepirideMedicineLinagliptinType 2 diabetesInternal medicineHazard ratioDiabetes mellitusMyocardial infarctionRegimenMetforminRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (NCT01243424) is an ongoing, randomized trial in subjects with early type 2 diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk or established complications that will determine the long-term cardiovascular impact of linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride. Eligible patients were sulphonylurea-naïve with HbA1c 6.5%-8.5% or previously exposed to sulphonylurea (in monotherapy or in a combination regimen <5 years) with HbA1c 6.5%-7.5%. Primary outcome is time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for unstable angina. A total of 631 patients with primary outcome events will be required to provide 91% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in cardiovascular safety by comparing the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval as being below 1.3 for a given hazard ratio. Hierarchical testing for superiority will follow, and the trial has 80% power to demonstrate a 20% relative cardiovascular risk reduction. A total of 6041 patients were treated with median type 2 diabetes duration 6.2 years, 40.0% female, mean HbA1c 7.2%, 66% on 1 and 24% on 2 glucose-lowering agents and 34.5% had previous cardiovascular complications. The results of CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes may influence the decision-making process for selecting a second glucose-lowering agent after metformin in type 2 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations206
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes and Vascular Disease ResearchSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207