Predictors of response to insulin therapy in youth with poorly‐controlled type 2 diabetes in the TODAY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the factors associated with glycemic control after starting insulin in youth with type 2 diabetes following glycemic failure (persistent HbA1c ≥8%) with metformin alone, metformin + rosiglitazone or metformin + lifestyle in the TODAY study. METHODS: Change in HbA1c after add-on insulin therapy and the factors predictive of glycemic response were evaluated. At 1-year postinsulin initiation, 253 youth had a mean of 3.9 ± 1.0 visits since the time of insulin initiation. Participants were divided into three groups according to glycemic control: consistent decrease in HbA1c by ≥0.5%, change <0.5%, or consistent increase in HbA1c ≥0.5%, at 75% or more of the visits. RESULTS: Within 1-year postinsulin initiation, 33.2% of participants had a consistent HbA1c decrease of ≥0.5%, 46.2% changed HbA1c <0.5%, and 20.6% had an increase ≥0.5%. At randomization into TODAY and at time of insulin initiation, the three glycemia groups were similar in age, sex, race-ethnicity, pubertal stage, BMI z-score, diabetes duration, and insulin secretion indices. Consistent HbA1c improvement was associated with higher insulin sensitivity (1/fasting insulin) at randomization and at time of failure, higher adiponectin at randomization, and was not associated with indices of β-cell function. CONCLUSIONS: Response to add-on insulin was highly variable among youth in TODAY. Greater insulin sensitivity and higher adiponectin concentrations at randomization were associated with improved glycemic control after initiation of insulin. Due to limited information on adherence to insulin injections, the roles of adherence to the prescribed insulin regimen or psychosocial factors are unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".