110-LB: The Korean Titration: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Self-Titration Algorithms of Insulin Glargine 300 Units/ml in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the Canadian TITRATION study, the INSIGHT algorithm was as effective as the EDITION algorithm for insulin dose titration in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these algorithms have not been evaluated in Asian patients. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of two algorithms, the INSIGHT and EDITION, for insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin Methods: The Korean TITRATION was a 12-week, single-center, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target, and pragmatic trial. We randomly assigned 130 patients to either the INSIGHT (self-titration by 1 unit/day) or EDITION (self-titration no more than every 3 days) groups to achieve a fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in the range of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was a proportion of patients reaching fasting SMBG ≤5.6 mmol/L without hypoglycemia. Results: A total of 129 patients were included in the study. At week 12, patients achieving the primary endpoint were 24.6% (INSIGHT) and 23.4% (EDITION) (P = 0.961). Fasting SMBG were 102.0 mg/dL (INSIGHT) and 111.2 mg/dL (EDITION) (P = 0.110). Proportions of patients with HbA1c ≤7% were 23.1% (INSIGHT) and 20.3% (EDITION) (P = 0.867). There was no difference in changes in fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and body weight between the two groups. Mean changes in total daily insulin doses were significantly higher in the INSIGHT group than in the EDITION group (12.83 units/day vs. 6.81 units/day, P = 0.030). However, the incidence of hypoglycemia was comparable between the two groups. In addition, adherence to the algorithm tended to be higher in the INSIGHT group than in the EDITION group (45.7% vs. 35.9%, P = 0.109). Conclusion: The self-titration of Gla-300 with the INSIGHT algorithm is effective and safe compared to that with the EDITION algorithm in Korean patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Disclosure J. Bae: None. C. Ahn: None. Y. Yang: None. S. Moon: None. S. Kwak: None. H. Jung: None. K. Park: None. Y. Cho: None.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".