MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900763157 · doi:10.1111/dom.13580

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed‐ratio combination improves glycaemic variability and control without increasing hypoglycaemia

2018· article· en· W2900763157 on OpenAlexaff
Ronnie Aronson, Guillermo E. Umpierrez, William Stager, Boris Kovatchev

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada)
FundersSanofi
KeywordsLixisenatideInsulin glargineMedicineInternal medicineHypoglycemiaEndocrinologyGlycated haemoglobinBasal insulinType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusExenatide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining optimal glycaemic control reduces the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Typically, glycaemic control is based on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as a measure of mean glucose concentration; however, this marker does not accurately reflect glycaemic variability (GV), which is characterized by the amplitude, frequency and duration of hypo- and hyperglycaemic fluctuations. In the present study, we analysed data from the LixiLan-O trial, which compared iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (Lixi) and long-acting basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar), with its individual components, and the LixiLan-L trial, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar. The GV features that were measured were mean and SD of self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), high blood glucose index (HBGI) and low blood glucose index, area under the SMPG curve for each patient (AUCn), mean absolute glucose (MAG) and mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE). By week 30, iGlarLixi improved all GV markers from baseline, with no increased hypoglycaemia risk. Significant improvements were observed in SMPG, SD of SMPG, HBGI, AUCn, MAG and MAGE compared with iGlar, and in SMPG, HBGI and AUCn, compared with Lixi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207