Investigation the Effects of Metformin versus Insulin on Neonatal and Maternal Outcomes in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Clinical Trail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of metformin versus insulin in the glycemic control and to investigate the maternal and neonatal outcomes in in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Pregnant women with gestational diabetes were randomized to either receive metformin (n=70) or insulin (n=70). Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, following healthy diet and performing exercise for at least one week without satisfactory blood glucose level, no risk factor contributing to lactic acidosis, and no anatomic and/or chromosome anomalies. Two patients were excluded from the study due to lost to follow-up. The mean score of BMI and FBS after treatment was similar between two groups. But, the mean score of 2 hours blood sugar in insulin group (104.38±7.06 mg/dl) was significantly higher than metformin group (97.5±5.98 mg/dl) (P<0.0001). The weight gain in metformin group was slightly lower than insulin group. (P=0.123). The proportion of neonatal hypoglycemia in insulin group was higher than metformin group (20 vs 3, P=0.002). Other neonatal outcomes such as IUGR, IUFD, fetal anomaly, polyhydramnios, macrosomia, oligohydramnios, and NICU stay did not differ significantly between two groups. In conclusion, metformin had compatible effect with insulin in decreasing adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes even in some parameters such as neonatal hypoglycemia it works better. Totally, metformin is safe and effectiveness in controlling the gestational diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".