MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171441059 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2011-100035

Intensive glucose lowering (HbA1c target<6.0%) for people with type 2 diabetes increases mortality

2011· letter· en· W2171441059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan E. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: ACCORD Study Group, Gerstein HC, Miller ME, et al. Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med 2011;364:818–28.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD)trial attempted to address the uncertainty that exists over whether intensively lowering blood glucose can reduce the significant excess of cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes. The trial was stopped after 3.5 years, because of an excess of deaths in the intensive glycaemia arm.1 The ACCORD investigators have now reported outcomes from an extended follow-up. The ACCORD trial recruited 10 251 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>7.5%) in the USA and Canada. Participants were aged 40–79 with either prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) or with CVD risk factors, had a mean diabetes duration of 10 years, and were randomised to either intensive blood glucose control (HbA1c target<6%) or standard control (HbA1c target 7.0–7.9%), to be … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.volume%253D364%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D818%26rft.epage%253D828%26rft.atitle%253DLong-term%2Beffects%2Bof%2Bintensive%2Bglucose%2Blowering%2Bon%2Bcardiovascular%2Boutcomes.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1006524%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21366473%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1006524&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21366473&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F6%2F186.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Empirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207