Randomized, Controlled Trial of Glucose-Sparing Peritoneal Dialysis in Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucose-containing peritoneal dialysis solutions may exacerbate metabolic abnormalities and increase cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. Here, we examined whether a low-glucose regimen improves metabolic control in diabetic patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to the control group (dextrose solutions only) or to the low-glucose intervention group (IMPENDIA trial: combination of dextrose-based solution, icodextrin and amino acids; EDEN trial: a different dextrose-based solution, icodextrin and amino acids) and followed for 6 months. Combining both studies, 251 patients were allocated to control (n=127) or intervention (n=124) across 11 countries. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin from baseline. Mean glycated hemoglobin at baseline was similar in both groups. In the intention-to-treat population, the mean glycated hemoglobin profile improved in the intervention group but remained unchanged in the control group (0.5% difference between groups; 95% confidence interval, 0.1% to 0.8%; P=0.006). Serum triglyceride, very-low-density lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein B levels also improved in the intervention group. Deaths and serious adverse events, including several related to extracellular fluid volume expansion, increased in the intervention group, however. These data suggest that a low-glucose dialysis regimen improves metabolic indices in diabetic patients receiving peritoneal dialysis but may be associated with an increased risk of extracellular fluid volume expansion. Thus, use of glucose-sparing regimens in peritoneal dialysis patients should be accompanied by close monitoring of fluid volume status.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".