Similar progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a long-term, randomised, open-label study. Reply to Chantelau E [letter] and Currie CJ [letter]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prospective Diabetes StudyTo the Editor: We thank Dr E. Chantelau and Dr C. Currie for their interest [1,2] in our findings [3], which we consider important because they are from a long-term randomised study that avoids the many limitations of retrospective database registry studies.They mainly commented on the power of the study and the possibility of performing post hoc sub-analyses.We would like to address their assertions, which we believe to be incorrect or misleading.We strongly disagree with Dr Chantelau's suggestion that the study was underpowered to detect changes in the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) [1].The sample size and power for the study were calculated based on these assumptions: a 20% 5 year background event rate; a non-inferiority margin of 10% (i.e.50% of the background rate of 20%); approximately 60% of the randomised participants evaluable; and the two treatments being equivalent.Statistical power considerations are only rele-
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".