Efficacy, safety, tolerability, and noninferiority phase 3 study of glucagon as a ready‐to‐use room temperature liquid stable formulation versus a lyophilised formulation for the biochemical recovery and symptomatic relief of insulin‐induced severe hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TRP has received research funding (paid to university) from Zealand Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi and has received consulting fees from Adocia, Arecor, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and The Longevity Laboratories. RA has received advisory fees from Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HTL Strefa, Gilead, Merck and Xeris Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Zealand, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Medpace, Kowa, Insulet, Dexcom and Bayer. MPC has received research funding from Abbott Diabetes Care, Biolinq, Dexcom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Helixmith, Pfizer, Novabio, GraphWear, Ascensia and Abbott Point of Care. BB and his employer, Atlanta Diabetes Associates, has received grant support from Xeris Pharmaceuticals, and BB has received speaker fees from Xeris Pharmaceuticals. KJ and VC are employees of Xeris Pharmaceuticals. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/dom.14699. Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or as supplementary information. Appendix S1 Supporting Information Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".