Renal Function in Type 2 Diabetes with Rosiglitazone, Metformin, and Glyburide Monotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcomes Prevention Trial), initial monotherapy with rosiglitazone provided more durable glycemic control than metformin or glyburide in patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Herein, we examine differences in albumin excretion, renal function (estimated GFR), and BP over 5 years between treatment groups. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 4351 recently diagnosed, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes were treated and followed for up to 5 years with rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide and were examined with periodic assessments of albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD)-estimated GFR, and BP. RESULTS: The ACR rose slowly with metformin. It fell with rosiglitazone and less so with glyburide over the first 2 years, and then rose slowly over time. Estimated GFR (eGFR) with all therapies rose into the high normal range over the first 3 to 4 years, more so with rosiglitazone, and then declined, more so with glyburide. Systolic BP was stable over time, values with rosiglitazone being lower, and diastolic BP declined over time, more so with rosiglitazone than with metformin or glyburide. There was no difference among groups in the incidence of emergent albuminuria (ACR ≥30 mg/g), hypertension, or impaired eGFR (<60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 5-year period, initial monotherapy with rosiglitazone retards the rise of ACR compared with metformin, preserves eGFR compared with glyburide, and lowers BP relative to both comparators.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".