Effects of Repaglinide Versus Glimepiride on 1,5-Anhydroglucutol and Glycated Hemoglobin Levels in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postprandial hyperglycemia is a well-known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We prospectively examined the effects of repaglinide on postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: During this 24-week, single-arm, prospective study, we enrolled 10 patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously being administered glimepiride (0.5 or 1 mg/day) and switched it with repaglinide (0.75 or 1.5 mg/day). Changes in their metabolic parameters were evaluated at the end of the study period. RESULTS: After replacing glimepiride with repaglinide, increases were observed in 1,5-anhydroglucitol levels (baseline, 5.46 ± 1.96 versus 24 weeks, 9.15 ± 4.48 µg/mL, P = 0.004) but not in glycated hemoglobin levels (baseline, 7.7 ± 0.5 versus 24 weeks, 7.4 ± 0.6%, P = 0.100). Body weight remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Compared with glimepiride, repaglinide improved 1,5-anhydroglucitol levels but had no effect on glycated hemoglobin. This suggests that repaglinide is a useful option for treating postprandial hyperglycemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".