MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034251945 · doi:10.2337/db20-1038-p

1038-P: Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) vs. First-Generation Standard-of-Care Basal Insulin Analogs (SOC-BI) in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D): Impact of Renal Function on the Outcomes of the Randomized Pragmatic Real-Life Achieve Control S

2020· article· en· W3034251945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luigi Meneghini, Alice Cheng, Pierre Évenou, Jasvinder Gill, Ayad Mohamed, Guillermo E. Umpierrez

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesHypoglycemiaInternal medicineInsulin glargineOdds ratioInsulinRenal functionEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusPopulationBasal insulinClinical endpointGastroenterologyUrologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 12-month ACHIEVE Control study, significantly more insulin-naive patients with T2D treated with Gla-300 vs. SOC-BI (glargine 100 U/mL or detemir) achieved the primary composite endpoint of individualized HEDIS A1c target attainment at 6 months without documented symptomatic (≤70 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia. This post-hoc analysis explored outcomes in subgroups with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <60, 60 to <90, and ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were older and had longer T2D duration. Within each eGFR subgroup, baseline characteristics were generally balanced between treatment groups. Within subgroups, odds ratios for clinical outcomes generally showed trends favoring Gla-300 vs. SOC-BI, consistent with the overall study population (Figure). In patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, the odds ratio point estimates for absence of documented symptomatic (≤70 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia at 6 and 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 (>1.40). The results suggest a potential benefit of Gla-300 vs. SOC-BI for avoiding hypoglycemia in patients with compromised renal function that warrants further evaluation in prospective studies. Disclosure L. Meneghini: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Consultant; Self; Applied Therapeutics, Sanofi US. A. Cheng: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Applied Therapeutics, Sanofi. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., mdBriefCase, Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. P. Evenou: Employee; Self; Sanofi. J. Gill: Other Relationship; Self; Sanofi US. A. Mohamed: None. G.E. Umpierrez: None. Funding Sanofi US

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207