The association of basal insulin treatment versus standard care with outcomes in anti‐GAD positive and negative subjects: A post‐hoc analysis of the ORIGIN trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared cardiovascular and other outcomes in patients with dysglycaemia with or without anti-glutamic acid dehydrogenase (GAD) antibodies participating in the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial. Of the 12 537 participants, 8162 had anti-GAD measured at baseline and 267 were anti-GAD positive. The effects of insulin glargine versus standard care and of n-3 fatty acids supplements versus placebo were compared by testing the interaction of the treatment effects and anti-GAD status. The effect of glargine on development of new diabetes was assessed in participants without previous diabetes at baseline. The overall incidence of outcomes did not differ between anti-GAD positive and anti-GAD negative subjects. The incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke did not differ between anti-GAD positive participants randomized to insulin glargine or to standard care, with a hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 0.80 (0.44-1.44) or in anti-GAD negative participants with a HR of 1.07 (0.96-1.20) (P for interaction = 0.20).
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".