Impact of 1h oral glucose tolerance test on the clinical status of adult cystic fibrosis patients over a 4-year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the clinical profile associated with G60 and I60 over a 4-year prospective observational period in 2 large cohorts of adult patients with CF. METHODS: 319 patients were included (210 Canadian and 119 French) and classified according to their inclusion G60 (≥ or < 11.1 mmol/L) and the median inclusion I60 (≥ or < 24 mU/I). Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), body mass index (BMI) were collected on OGTT days. Linear mixed regression models were used to assess the effect of G60 and I60. RESULTS: High G60 was not associated to a lower FEV1 at inclusion and the follow-up decline was not higher in the high G60 group (Coefficient [95% CI]: -3.4 [-7.4;0.6], p = 0.0995.). There was no significant association between BMI and G60. Patients with high I60 tended to have a higher mean BMI (+0.5 kg/m2 [0.0 to 1.1], p = 0.05) but no interaction over time was observed. CONCLUSIONS: High G60 is not associated with a lower lung function at inclusion nor its decline over a 4-year follow-up. High I60 is slightly associated to a higher weight at inclusion, but not with BMI evolution over time in adult patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".