MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943453646 · doi:10.1111/dom.13755

Response of 1,5‐anhydroglucitol level to intensive glucose‐ and blood‐pressure lowering interventions, and its associations with clinical outcomes in the ADVANCE trial

2019· article· en· W2943453646 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Selvin, Dan Wang, John W. McEvoy, Stephen P. Juraschek, Mariana Lazo, Pavel Hamet, Mark E. Cooper, Michel Marre, Bryan Williams, Stephen Harrap, John Chalmers, Mark Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteServierNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalBlood pressureDiabetes mellitusGlycated hemoglobinType 2 diabetesProportional hazards modelEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To evaluate 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) according to clinical outcomes and assess the effects of glucose- and blood pressure-lowering interventions on change in 1,5-AG levels in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We measured 1,5-AG in 6826 stored samples at baseline and in a random subsample of 684 participants at the 1-year follow-up visit in the ADVANCE trial. We examined baseline 1,5-AG [< 39.7, 39.7-66.2, ≥ 66.2 μmol/L (<6, 6-10, ≥10 μg/mL)] and microvascular and macrovascular events and mortality using Cox regression models during 5 years of follow-up. Using an intention-to-treat approach, we examined 1-year change in 1,5-AG (mean and percent) in response to the glucose- and blood pressure-lowering interventions in the subsample. RESULTS: Low 1,5-AG level [<39.7 μmol/L vs ≥ 66.2 μmol/L (<6 μg/mL vs ≥10 μg/mL)] was associated with microvascular events (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.60) after adjustment for risk factors and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c); however, the associations for macrovascular events and mortality were not independent of HbA1c. The glucose-lowering intervention was associated with a significant 1-year increase in 1,5-AG (vs standard control) of 6.69 μmol/L (SE 2.52) [1.01 μg/mL (SE 0.38)], corresponding to an 8.26% (SE 0.10%) increase from baseline. We also observed an increase in 1,5-AG of similar magnitude in response to the blood pressure intervention independent of the glucose-lowering effect. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 1,5-AG is a marker of risk in adults with type 2 diabetes, but only for microvascular events independently of HbA1c. We found that 1,5-AG was improved (increased) in response to an intensive glucose-lowering intervention, although the independent effect of the blood pressure-lowering intervention on 1,5-AG suggests potential non-glycaemic influences.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207