MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809247392 · doi:10.2337/db18-1039-p

Achievement of Individualized HbA1c Targets with Self- vs. Physician-Led Titration of Basal Insulin (BI) in People with Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM), Newly or Recently Initiated on BI—Results from the DUNE Real-World Study

2018· article· en· W2809247392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Berard, Dı́dac Mauricio, Kamlesh Khunti, Denise Reis Franco, Jukka Westerbacka, Christophe Candelas, Valérie Pilorget, Riccardo Perfetti, Luigi Meneghini

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasal insulinHypoglycemiaTitrationDiabetes mellitusInsulinInternal medicineType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DUNE was a 12-week, prospective, observational study of 3139 adults with T2DM, newly (at enrollment) or recently (<12 months) initiated on BI. We evaluated the achievement of individualized HbA1c targets at 12 weeks according to self- vs. physician-led insulin titration. Irrespective of titration method, the proportion of participants who achieved their individualized HbA1c target at week 12 was <30% in both the newly- and recently- initiated BI groups (Table). For both titration groups, there were comparable improvements in fasting plasma glucose from baseline and similar incidence of hypoglycemia. Increase in total daily BI dose for self- vs. physician-led titration in the recently initiated BI group was 4.85 vs. 4.91 U, respectively, while in newly initiated individuals it was 9.68 vs. 7.77 U, respectively. Most participants who were self-titrating did so every 1-3 days, compared with no more frequently than every week for most participants who had physician-led titration. In all groups, the most frequently utilized dose increment was 2 U. The inability of most participants to achieve their target HbA1c in a real-world scenario, irrespective of the method of titration, warrants further investigation. Disclosure L. Berard: Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, Becton, Dickinson and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Montmed Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., LifeScan Canada. Consultant; Self; Ascensia Diabetes Care. Other Relationship; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Merck & Co., Inc. D. Mauricio: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen-Cilag Pty Limited. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. Board Member; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. Research Support; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Board Member; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. K. Khunti: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd., Servier. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis AG, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd., Servier. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Consultant; Self; Pfizer Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. D.R. Franco: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott. J. Westerbacka: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. C. Candelas: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. V. Pilorget: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. R. Perfetti: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. L. Meneghini: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Consultant; Self; Sanofi US, Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; American Diabetes Association.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207