Sustained efficacy of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple daily injections in type 2 diabetes: 12‐month data from the <scp>OpT2mise</scp> randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare insulin pump therapy and multiple daily injections (MDI) in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal and prandial insulin analogues. METHODS: After a 2-month dose-optimization period, 331 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥8.0% and ≤12% were randomized to pump therapy or continued MDI for 6 months [randomization phase (RP)]. The MDI group was subsequently switched to pump therapy during a 6-month continuation phase (CP). The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in change in mean HbA1c from baseline to the end of the RP. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c at baseline was 9% in both groups. At the end of the RP, the reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater with pump therapy than with MDI (-1.1 ± 1.2% vs -0.4 ± 1.1%; p < 0.001). The pump therapy group maintained this improvement to 12 months while the MDI group, which was switched to pump therapy, showed a 0.8% reduction: the final HbA1c level was identical in both arms. In the RP, total daily insulin dose (TDD) was 20.4% lower with pump therapy than with MDI and remained stable in the CP. The MDI-pump group showed a 19% decline in TDD, such that by 12 months TDD was equivalent in both groups. There were no differences in weight gain or ketoacidosis between groups. In the CP, one patient in each group experienced severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Pump therapy has a sustained durable effect on glycaemic control in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".