A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL Versus 100 Units/mL in Older People With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SENIOR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: SENIOR compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) with glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in older people (≥65 years old) with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: SENIOR was an open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, multicenter phase 3b trial designed to enroll ∼20% of participants aged ≥75 years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to Gla-300 or Gla-100, titrated to a fasting self-monitored plasma glucose of 5.0-7.2 mmol/L (90-130 mg/dL). RESULTS: were observed from baseline to week 26 for Gla-300 (-0.89%) and Gla-100 (-0.91%) in the overall population (least squares mean difference: 0.02% [95% CI -0.092 to 0.129]) and for participants aged ≥75 years (-0.11% [-0.330 to 0.106]). Incidence and rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia events were low and similar between both treatment groups, with lower rates of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia with Gla-300. The lower risk of hypoglycemia with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 was more apparent in the subgroup aged ≥75 years versus the overall population. Significantly lower annualized rates of documented symptomatic (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) hypoglycemia were observed (Gla-300: 1.12; Gla-100: 2.71; rate ratio: 0.45 [95% CI 0.25-0.83]). CONCLUSIONS: and similarly low or lower risk of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia versus Gla-100. A significant benefit in hypoglycemia reduction was seen in participants aged ≥75 years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, 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".