The NIDDK Takes on the Complications of Type 1 Diabetes: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (1983-1993), intensive therapy aimed at near-normal glycemia was compared with conventional therapy in 1,441 adolescent and adult participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) over a mean follow-up of 6.5 years. The primary DCCT results, reported in 1993, demonstrated the benefits of intensive therapy (mean HbA1c ∼7%) compared with conventional therapy (HbA1c ∼9%) in reducing the risk of development and progression of microvascular complications by 35%-76%. HbA1c <7% was adopted worldwide as the therapeutic target for T1D. Subsequently, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study (1994-present) was initiated as the observational follow-up of the DCCT cohort. EDIC has shown that the early beneficial effects of intensive versus conventional therapy on complications persisted for ∼10 years after the convergence of HbA1c levels in the two groups during EDIC-a novel concept termed "metabolic memory." During EDIC, prior intensive therapy was also shown to reduce the risk of severe microvascular complications, cardiovascular disease, mortality, and, recently, of age-related outcomes including cognitive impairment, bone loss, and reduced mobility. The DCCT/EDIC cohort is the most extensively studied T1D cohort in history. The participants have been followed and deeply phenotyped for 95% of their diabetes durations and 65% of their lifespans. Throughout its 40+ years, funded by and in close collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, DCCT/EDIC has generated results that have guided treatment priorities in T1D and led to improved survival and quality of life for millions of people with T1D worldwide.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".