MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164116228 · doi:10.2337/dc12-1391

Determinants of Weight Gain in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Trial

2013· article· en· W2164116228 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian Fonseca, Roberta Harrison McDuffie, Jorge Calles, Robert M. Cohen, Patricia Feeney, Mark N. Feinglos, Hertzel C. Gerstein, Faramarz Ismail‐Beigi, Timothy M. Morgan, Rodica Pop‐Busui, Matthew C. Riddle

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineWeight gainWeight changeGlycemicDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineWaistWeight lossType 2 diabetesMetforminRandomized controlled trialObesityPhysical therapyEndocrinologyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Identify determinants of weight gain in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) allocated to intensive versus standard glycemic control in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied determinants of weight gain over 2 years in 8,929 participants (4,425 intensive arm and 4,504 standard arm) with T2DM in the ACCORD trial. We used general linear models to examine the association between each baseline characteristic and weight change at the 2-year visit. We fit a linear regression of change in weight and A1C and used general linear models to examine the association between each medication at baseline and weight change at the 2-year visit, stratified by glycemia allocation. RESULTS: There was significantly more weight gain in the intensive glycemia arm of the trial compared with the standard arm (3.0 ± 7.0 vs. 0.3 ± 6.3 kg). On multivariate analysis, younger age, male sex, Asian race, no smoking history, high A1C, baseline BMI of 25-35, high waist circumference, baseline insulin use, and baseline metformin use were independently associated with weight gain over 2 years. Reduction of A1C from baseline was consistently associated with weight gain only when baseline A1C was elevated. Medication usage accounted for <15% of the variability of weight change, with initiation of thiazolidinedione (TZD) use the most prominent factor. Intensive participants who never took insulin or a TZD had an average weight loss of 2.9 kg during the first 2 years of the trial. In contrast, intensive participants who had never previously used insulin or TZD but began this combination after enrolling in the ACCORD trial had a weight gain of 4.6-5.3 kg at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Weight gain in ACCORD was greater with intensive than with standard treatment and generally associated with reduction of A1C from elevated baseline values. Initiation of TZD and/or insulin therapy was the most important medication-related factor associated with weight gain.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207