MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408692528 · doi:10.2337/dci24-0104

The Modern Role of Basal Insulin in Advancing Therapy in People With Type 2 Diabetes

2025· review· en· W4408692528 on OpenAlexaff
Geremia B. Bolli, Philip Home, Francesca Porcellati, Matthew C. Riddle, Hertzel C. Gerstein, Paola Lucidi, Carmine G. Fanelli, David R. Owens

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinType 2 diabetesPopulationInsulin resistanceType 2 Diabetes MellitusMetforminBasal (medicine)Intensive care medicineEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insulin deficiency, often aggravated by insulin resistance, results in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). With the availability of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, basal insulin (BI) therapy is no longer the first-line option after lifestyle modification plus oral agents is insufficient. In contrast to BI, the newer medications require minor titration, lower hyperglycemia in a glucose-dependent manner, and reduce body weight. Importantly, the newer agents reduce cardiorenal events in the short term. Nonetheless, insulin therapy continues to play a key role in control of hyperglycemia and therefore long-term prevention of vascular complications. Its use is essential in many circumstances, including metabolic emergencies, new diabetes onset, latent autoimmune diabetes (LADA), pregnancy, and when other agents are less desirable due to comorbidities. BI is needed in the frequent condition of failure of other therapies to keep HbA1c to target and/or intolerance of them. There are several advantages to the combination of BI with the newer medications given their different but complementary mechanisms of action, primarily, the lower dose of each, improving adherence and outcomes while decreasing the side effects. Multiple choices for single or combination use can better meet the variety of clinical phenotypes in the heterogeneous T2DM population, using the tenets of precision medicine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207