MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909377024 · doi:10.14740/jem.v8i6.540

Add-On Sitagliptin Therapy for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: An Analysis of Hemoglobin A1c and Other Variables Using ASSIST-K Follow-Up Data

2018· article· en· W2909377024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masashi Ishikawa, Masahiko Takai, Hajime Maeda, Akira Kanamori, Akira Kubota, Hikaru Amemiya, Takashi Iizuka, Kotaro Iemitsu, Tomoyuki Iwasaki, Goro Uehara, Shinichi Umezawa, Mitsuo Obana, Hideaki Kaneshige, Mizuki Kaneshiro, Takehiro Kawata, Nobuo Sasai, Tatsuya Saito, Tetsuo Takuma, Hiroshi Takeda, Keiji Tanaka, Shigeru Nakajima, Kazuhiko Hoshino, Shin Honda, Hideo Machimura, Kiyokazu Matoba, Fuyuki Minagawa, Nobuaki Minami, Yukiko Miyairi, Atsuko Mokubo, Tetsuya Motomiya, Manabu Waseda, Masaaki Miyakawa, Yasuo Terauchi, Yasushi Tanaka, Ikuro Matsuba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSitagliptinMedicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineDipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitorInsulinDiabetes mellitusPostprandialHypoglycemiaAdverse effectEndocrinologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sitagliptin was the first dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor approved in Japan. Its efficacy and safety have been demonstrated, both as monotherapy and in combination with oral antidiabetic agents or insulin. However, reduction of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by sitagliptin is insufficient in some patients. Therefore, data from an observational study of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (ASSIST-K) were used to conduct factor analysis of the 12-month changes in HbA1c, body weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and adverse events (AEs). Methods: At member institutions of Kanagawa Physicians Association specializing in diabetes, outpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin were followed for 12 months after addition of sitagliptin. The HbA1c (National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program), blood glucose (fasting/postprandial), body weight, eGFR, and AEs were evaluated at each specified time. Multivariate analysis was performed by using sex and age as explanatory variables and the following response variables: the change in HbA1c, body weight, or eGFR after 12 months of sitagliptin treatment, and occurrence of AEs. Results: Of 1,168 patients registered in the ASSIST-K study, 412 patients were included in this analysis, excluding those not receiving insulin before sitagliptin, those in whom the 12-month change in HbA1c could not be calculated, and those with missing data on explanatory variables. There was a significant decrease in HbA1c and eGFR, but no significant change in body weight. AEs observed in > 10 patients were severe hypoglycemia (14 patients, 3.4%) and constipation (13 patients, 3.2%). Factor analysis revealed the following points: 1) Concurrent dyslipidemia and baseline HbA1c influenced the 12-month change in HbA1c; 2) Baseline body mass index and HbA1c influenced the 12-month change in body weight; and 3) Concurrent dyslipidemia, baseline sulfonylurea treatment, baseline body mass index, and baseline eGFR influenced the 12-month change in eGFR. In addition, the risk of severe hypoglycemia or constipation was significantly influenced by baseline HbA1c. Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes showing higher HbA1c levels after add-on sitagliptin therapy had concurrent dyslipidemia and a lower baseline HbA1c. Severe hypoglycemia or constipation was more likely to occur in patients with a low baseline HbA1c. J Endocrinol Metab. 2018;8(6):126-138 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem540

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endocrinology and Metabolism→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→