MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047345155 · doi:10.15586/jptcp.v27isp2.680

Effect of a standard schema of self-monitoring blood glucose in patients with poorly controlled, non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus: A controlled longitudinal study

2020· article· en· W3047345155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Madeo, Chiara Diazzi, Antonio R. M. Granata, Marwan El Ghoch, Carla Greco, Stefania Romano, Sara Scaltriti, Vincenzo Rochira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinType 2 diabetesInternal medicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycemic control with regard to non-insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus (NIT-Type 2 DM) is still a controversial topic. Against this backdrop, we sought to compare the effect of a continuous short-term SMBG schema with as-usual treatment, based on changes in oral antidiabetic treatment in patients with poorly controlled Type 2 DM. We reviewed 492 NIT-Type 2 DM record charts, selecting 27 patients, with poor glycemic control, who were thought to self-monitor their blood glucose levels (SMBG group). We then compared them with 27 patients treated with modifying drugs or diets to achieve and maintain the glycemic target (Control Group). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were evaluated at baseline, after 3 and 6 months. HbA1c values decreased after 3 and 6 months in the SMBG group (P < 0.001 on both occasions) and in the control group (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively), but without a significant difference between the two groups when compared at the same time. The FPG progressively decreased in both groups, reaching a significant difference in the SMBG group after 3 months and in the control group after 6 months, and without a significant difference between the two groups. The SMBG schema used in our study could be adopted for target groups before proceeding to the next therapeutic enhancement drug step, representing a useful tool that can help diabetic patients in raising awareness of and treating their disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical PharmacologySame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207