Evaluación de tres estudios internacionales multicéntricos prospectivos en el estudio y manejo de la diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palabras clave: Diabetes mellitus, glicemia basal, glicemia posprandial, glicohemoglobina, tratamiento, complicaciones, control diabetico. Abstract Background: For many years, a close relation had been consid- ered between chronic hyperglycemia and vascular complica- tions of diabetes mellitus. In order to establish the possibility of preventing complications through diabetes control, during the last twenty years several studies were developed in the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States of America. These three important, transcendent, prospective, longitudinal, multicentric, randomized and well controlled protocols have confirmed the benefits of strict control of glycemia on patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Purpose: This is a revision of the corresponding publications of the three protocols in order to evaluate their design and discuss outcome in order to analyze the implications on the corresponding Mexican Standard for Diabetes. NOM-015-SSA. Material and methodology: Origi- nal publications generated by UKPDS from United Kingdom, DCCT from USA and Canada and Kumamoto from Japan were reviewed and main data was organized in order to allow a meta- analysis designed to visualize similarities, differences and to es- tablish general conclusions. Outcome: The English study is the largest and longest protocol ever perfomed on diabetes mellitus type 2 (n > 5,000). The american protocol was the only one specifically designed for diabetes mellitus type 1. All three stud-
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 | 0.078 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".