Impact of baseline glycated haemoglobin, diabetes duration and body mass index on clinical outcomes in the <scp>LixiLan‐O</scp> trial testing a titratable fixed‐ratio combination of insulin glargine/lixisenatide ( <scp>iGlarLixi</scp> ) vs insulin glargine and lixisenatide monocomponents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether baseline characteristics had an impact on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan‐O trial (N = 1170), we compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi , a titratable fixed‐ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U ( iGlar ) and lixisenatide (Lixi) with iGlar or Lixi alone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus ( T2DM ) on oral therapy. Subgroups according to baseline glycated haemoglobin ( HbA1c ; <8% or ≥8% [<64 or ≥64 mmol/mol]), T2DM disease duration (<7 or ≥7 years) and body mass index ( BMI ; <30 or ≥30 kg/m 2 ) were investigated. In all subpopulations, iGlarLixi was consistently statistically superior to iGlar and Lixi alone in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 30; higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) with iGlarLixi vs iGlar and Lixi alone. Compared with iGlar , iGlarLixi resulted in a substantial decrease in 2‐hour postprandial plasma glucose levels, and mitigation of weight gain, with no differences among subpopulations in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar and Lixi alone, without weight gain or increase in hypoglycaemic risk compared with iGlar in the subpopulations tested, regardless of baseline HbA1c , disease duration and BMI .
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".