MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404839124 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.28.24317254

Emulating randomized controlled trials of long-acting insulins and cardiovascular events using real-world data for patients with type 2 diabetes

2024· preprint· en· W4404839124 on OpenAlexaff
Wanning Wang, Michael Webster‐Clark, Oriana HY Yu, Vanessa C. Brunetti, Kristian B. Filion

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialReal world dataDiabetes mellitusMedicineDiabetes treatmentContinuous glucose monitoringInternal medicineType 1 diabetesComputer scienceData scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Aims Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity but often have limited generalizability. To our knowledge, there are no studies examining potential differences between RCTs and real-world data in patient characteristics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with long-acting insulin analogues. Methods We emulated the DEVOTE trial of insulin degludec vs glargine among patients with T2DM using data from the United Kingdom’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink. DEVOTE eligible and ineligible subpopulations were created. Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for MACE comparing new users of insulin degludec to new users of insulin glargine overall and in the eligible/ineligible subpopulations. Results There were 10,430 patients in the overall population, 5,280 in the DEVOTE eligible population, and 5,150 in the DEVOTE ineligible population. The overall (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.86) and DEVOTE eligible populations (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.58) were compatible with findings from the DEVOTE trial (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.06) for the risk of MACE. Due to a low number of events the DEVOTE ineligible population had deviations in point estimates and wider CIs (HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.30, 3.83). Conclusion The risk of MACE among patients with T2DM newly prescribed insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine was consistent between the overall population and the DEVOTE eligible subpopulation, while the DEVOTE ineligible population had discrepant point estimates. Twitter Summary Our study emulated the DEVOTE trial using RWD. Half of the RWD population would be eligible for the trial. RWD and RCTs had compatible effect estimate for risk of major cardiovascular outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.498
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.624
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4980.624
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.016
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→