MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611571544 · doi:10.25011/cim.v32i6.10669

Comparison of antihyperglycemic effects of creatine and metformin in type II diabetic patients

2009· article· en· W2611571544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nataša Bedernjak Bajuk, Diana S. Weber, Jozo Boras, Marijana Vučić Lovrenčić

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetforminMedicineInternal medicineCreatineEndocrinologyType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To compare the antihyperglycemic effects of metformin and creatine in recently detected type II diabetics in a short-term clinical study. Methods In a 14 day simmetrically randomized crossover study, recently detected type II diabetics received either creatine (2x3 g/day) or metformin (2x500 mg/day) for five days, followed by two days of washout, followed by cross-over to the opposite treatment for the next five days. Fasting and post-prandial (-15, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 240 min) blood glucose, insulin, c-peptide, creatine and lactate were measured every other day for the duration of treatment, and HbA1c only at the begining and at the end of the study. Results Both creatine and metformin decreased glucose concentrations to similar levels at all time points vs. basal glucose values [-15, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 min] 11.1±0.75 vs 9.1±0.55a vs 8.8±0.59b, 14.4±0.6 vs 12.9±0.47a vs 13.1±0.55a, 14.8±0.58 vs 13.0±0.46b vs 13.3±0.55a, 14.1±0.6 vs 11.9±0.42b vs 12.5±0.51a, 12.2±0.6 vs 9.6±0.36c vs 9.9±0.38c, and 10.1±0.47 vs 7.8±0.36c vs 8.4±0.4b; (aP < 0.05; bP < 0.01; cP < 0.001 vs. basal glucose values). Neither treatment altered insulin, c-peptide, or HbA1c. Lactate varied during the day, but never reached the upper level of the safety reference range. Conclusion Short-term treatment with creatine and metformin elicits similar glucose lowering effects in recently detected type II diabetics. Further studies are necessary to determine the effect of creatine on long-term glucose and insulin regulation. Purpose To compare the antihyperglycemic effects of metformin and creatine in recently detected type II diabetics in a short-term clinical study. Methods In a 14 day simmetrically randomized crossover study, recently detected type II diabetics received either creatine (2x3 g/day) or metformin (2x500 mg/day) for five days, followed by two days of washout, followed by cross-over to the opposite treatment for the next five days. Fasting and post-prandial (-15, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 240 min) blood glucose, insulin, c-peptide, creatine and lactate were measured every other day for the duration of treatment, and HbA1c only at the begining and at the end of the study. Results Both creatine and metformin decreased glucose concentrations to similar levels at all time points vs. basal glucose values [-15, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 min] 11.1±0.75 vs 9.1±0.55a vs 8.8±0.59b, 14.4±0.6 vs 12.9±0.47a vs 13.1±0.55a, 14.8±0.58 vs 13.0±0.46b vs 13.3±0.55a, 14.1±0.6 vs 11.9±0.42b vs 12.5±0.51a, 12.2±0.6 vs 9.6±0.36c vs 9.9±0.38c, and 10.1±0.47 vs 7.8±0.36c vs 8.4±0.4b; (aP < 0.05; bP < 0.01; cP < 0.001 vs. basal glucose values). Neither treatment altered insulin, c-peptide, or HbA1c. Lactate varied during the day, but never reached the upper level of the safety reference range. Conclusion Short-term treatment with creatine and metformin elicits similar glucose lowering effects in recently detected type II diabetics. Further studies are necessary to determine the effect of creatine on long-term glucose and insulin regulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207