Faculty Opinions recommendation of Effect of a low-glycemic index or a high-cereal fiber diet on type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Clinical trials using antihyperglycemic medications to improve glycemic control have not demonstrated the anticipated cardiovascular benefits. Low-glycemic index diets may improve both glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors for patients with type 2 diabetes but debate over their effectiveness continues due to trial limitations.OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of low-glycemic index diets on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, parallel study design at a Canadian university hospital research center of 210 participants with type 2 diabetes treated with antihyperglycemic medications who were recruited by newspaper advertisement and randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 diet treatments each for 6 months between September 16, 2004, and May 22, 2007.INTERVENTION: High-cereal fiber or low-glycemic index dietary advice.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absolute change in glycated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), with fasting blood glucose and cardiovascular disease risk factors as secondary measures.RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, HbA(1c) decreased by -0.18% absolute HbA(1c) units (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.29% to -0.07%) in the high-cereal fiber diet compared with -0.50% absolute HbA(1c) units (95% CI, -0.61% to -0.39%) in the low-glycemic index diet (P < .001). There was also an increase of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the low-glycemic index diet by 1.7 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.8-2.6 mg/dL) compared with a decrease of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by -0.2 mg/dL (95% CI, -0.9 to 0.5 mg/dL) in the high-cereal fiber diet (P = .005). The reduction in dietary glycemic index related positively to the reduction in HbA(1c) concentration (r = 0.35, P < .001) and negatively to the increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = -0.19, P = .009).CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes, 6-month treatment with a low-glycemic index diet resulted in moderately lower HbA(1c) levels compared with a high-cereal fiber diet. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00438698. PMID: 19088352
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.019 |
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".