ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2024
Some patients with type 2 diabetes may benefit from intensive glycaemic and blood pressure control: A post-hoc machine learning analysis of ACCORD trial data.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes-related cognitive impairment: Mechanisms, symptoms, and treatments.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed a neutral average treatment effect of intensive blood glucose and blood pressure (BP) controls in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Yet, treatment effects across patient subgroups have not been well understood. We aimed to identify patient subgroups that might benefit from intensive glucose or BP controls for preventing MACE. MATERIALS AND
methodsAs a post-hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, we included 10 251 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We applied causal forest and causal tree models to identify participant characteristics that modify the efficacy of intensive glucose or BP controls from 68 candidate variables (demographics, comorbidities, medications and biomarkers) at the baseline. The exposure was (a) intensive versus standard glucose control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <6.0% vs. 7.0%-7.9%], and (b) intensive versus standard BP control (systolic BP <120 vs. <140 mmHg). The primary outcome was MACE.
resultsCompared with standard glucose control, intensive one reduced MACE in those with baseline HbA1c <8.5% [relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.93] and those with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥106 ml/min/1.73 m
conclusionsOur findings suggest heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive glucose and BP control and could provide biomarkers for future clinical trials to identify more precise HbA1c and BP treatment goals for individualized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.