An investigation into the durability of glycemic control in patients with type II diabetes initiated on canagliflozin or sitagliptin: A real-world analysis of electronic medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this study were to assess glycemic control, weight loss, and durability of glycemic control in patients initiated on canagliflozin (CANA) versus sitagliptin (SITA). METHODS: Adults with type II diabetes mellitus initiated on CANA or SITA (index date) were identified from IQVIA™ Real-World Data Electronic Medical Records - US database (03/29/2012-04/30/2016). Inverse probability of treatment weighting accounted for baseline differences between cohorts. Outcomes were compared using weighted Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves and included time to reaching HbA1c thresholds (<7%[53 mmol/mol], <8%[64 mmol/mol], <9%[75 mmol/mol]), weight loss ≥5%, failure to maintain HbA1c below threshold, new antihyperglycemic (AHA) prescription, and failure to maintain HbA1c/new AHA prescription. RESULTS: = 15,151). CANA patients were 12-15% more likely to reach the HbA1c thresholds, 47% more likely to lose ≥5% of body weight, 31% less likely to have a new AHA prescription, 10-15% less likely to fail to maintain HbA1c, and 13-26% less likely to fail to maintain HbA1c or have a new AHA, versus SITA patients. CONCLUSIONS: CANA patients were more likely to reach HbA1c and weight loss thresholds and maintain HbA1c below threshold versus SITA patients, while being less likely to have a prescription for a new AHA, suggesting more durable glycemic control with CANA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".