Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Following a Short-term Intensive Intervention With Insulin Glargine, Sitagliptin, and Metformin: Results of an Open-label Randomized Parallel-Design Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate remission of type 2 diabetes following a short-term intervention with insulin glargine, sitagliptin/metformin, and lifestyle approaches. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open multicenter trial, 102 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to 1) a 12-week intervention with sitagliptin/metformin, insulin glargine, and lifestyle therapy or 2) control group. Participants with HbA1c <7.3% (<56 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks were asked to stop diabetes medications and were followed for evidence of relapse over 52 weeks. Diabetes relapse criteria included HbA1c ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol), ≥50% of capillary glucose readings >10 mmol/L over 1 week, and reinitiation of diabetes medications with or without abnormal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or 2-h plasma glucose on an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Time-to-relapse analysis was conducted to compare the treatment groups with (primary analysis) and without (supplementary analysis) FPG/OGTT relapse criteria. RESULTS: With the FPG/OGTT relapse criteria included, the hazard ratio (HR) of relapse was 0.72 (95% CI 0.47-1.10) in the intervention group compared with the control group (primary analysis), and the number of participants remaining in remission was not significantly different between treatment groups at 24, 36, 48, and 64 weeks. In the supplementary analyses without these criteria, HR of relapse was 0.60 (95% CI 0.39-0.95), and the number of participants remaining in remission was significantly higher (26 vs. 10%) in the intervention group at 36 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Although our primary outcome was not statistically significant, the tested approach deserves further study with further optimization of its components.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".