Response to Comment on Russell-Jones et al. Diabetes Care 2017;40:943–950. Comment on Bowering et al. Diabetes Care 2017;40:951–957
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the relevant comments raised by Wu et al. (1) regarding the challenges faced by clinicians in safely achieving postprandial, and overall, glycemic control for patients with diabetes in the face of individual needs and physiological variation (including varying rates of gastric emptying/gastroparesis). Increasing awareness and understanding of factors affecting the complex physiology of postprandial glucose regulation, together with an understanding of the clinical pharmacological profile, are key in guiding appropriate dosing and timing of any mealtime insulin therapy. In the onset 1 and 2 trials, both mealtime (0–2 min before the meal) and postmeal dosing (20 min after the start of a meal investigated in onset 1) of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) demonstrated noninferior overall glycemic control compared with mealtime conventional insulin aspart. Importantly, no statistically significant differences in the overall rates of hypoglycemia were found in these trials …
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
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".