Review: intensive glucose control reduced some CV events but did not change mortality in type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review: intensive glucose control reduced some CV events but did not change mortality in type 2 diabetes QUESTION Does intensive glucose control reduce cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? REVIEW SCOPEIncluded studies compared intensive glucose-lowering regimens with standard regimens (placebo, standard care, or reduced-intensity control) in stable patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, had significant group differences in haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) concentrations during follow-up, reported CV events as primary outcomes, and provided adequate data for outcomes of interest: non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and all-cause mortality.Other outcomes included HbA 1c concentrations, heart failure (HF), hypoglycaemia, and weight gain. REVIEW METHODSMedline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central (all 1970 to Jan 2009) and reference lists were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Experts were contacted.5 RCTs (n = 33 040, mean age 62 y, 62% men) met the selection criteria.Intensive glucose control regimens varied. MAIN RESULTSThe main results are in the table.Mean HbA 1c concentration at baseline was 7.8% (range 7.1-9.4%).At a mean 5 years of follow-up, intensive glucose control reduced HbA 1c concentrations more than standard control (mean 6.6% v 7.5%, difference 0.9%, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.92).Intensive glucose control was associated with more frequent serious hypoglycaemic events than standard control (mean 2.3% v 1.2%, p value not reported) and increased weight gain (mean 2.4 v 20.1 kg, p value not reported). CONCLUSIONIn patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, intensive glucose control reduced some cardiovascular events but did not change overall mortality.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".