In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.
One example: Alterations of the architecture of cerebral white matter in the developing human brain can affect cortical development and result in functional disabilities. A line scan diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence with diffusion tensor analysis was applied to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient, to calculate relative anisotropy, and to delineate three-dimensional fiber architecture in cerebral white matter in preterm (n = 17) and full-term infants (n = 7). To assess effects of prematurity on cerebral white matter development, early gestation preterm infants (n = 10) were studied a second time at term. In the central white matter the mean apparent diffusion coefficient at 28 wk was high, 1.8 microm2/ms, and decreased toward term to 1.2 microm2/ms. In the posterior limb of the internal capsule, the mean apparent diffusion coefficients at both times were similar (1.2 versus 1.1 microm2/ms). Relative anisotropy was higher the closer birth was to term with greater absolute values in the internal capsule than in the central white matter. Preterm infants at term showed higher mean diffusion coefficients in the central white matter (1.4 +/- 0.24 versus 1.15 +/- 0.09 microm2/ms, p = 0.016) and lower relative anisotropy in both areas compared with full-term infants (white matter, 10.9 +/- 0.6 versus 22.9 +/- 3.0%, p = 0.001; internal capsule, 24.0 +/- 4.44 versus 33.1 +/- 0.6% p = 0.006). Nonmyelinated fibers in the corpus callosum were visible by diffusion tensor MRI as early as 28 wk; full-term and preterm infants at term showed marked differences in white matter fiber organization. The data indicate that quantitative assessment of water diffusion by diffusion tensor MRI provides insight into microstructural development in cerebral white matter in living infants.
Solution is here: Microstructural development of human newborn cerebral white matter assessed in vivo by diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging.
Explanation: This title is appropriate for the given abstract because the focus of this abstract is cerebral white matter assesment.

Now, solve this: Importance Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are all currently available as an injection. Objectives To compare the effects of oral semaglutide with placebo (primary) and open-label subcutaneous semaglutide (secondary) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Patients Phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, dosage-finding, 26-week trial with 5-week follow-up at 100 sites (hospital clinics, general practices, and clinical research centers) in 14 countries conducted between December 2013 and December 2014. Of 1106 participants assessed, 632 with type 2 diabetes and insufficient glycemic control using diet and exercise alone or a stable dose of metformin were randomized. Randomization was stratified by metformin use. Interventions Once-daily oral semaglutide of 2.5 mg (n = 70), 5 mg (n = 70), 10 mg (n = 70), 20 mg (n = 70), 40-mg 4-week dose escalation (standard escalation; n = 71), 40-mg 8-week dose escalation (slow escalation; n = 70), 40-mg 2-week dose escalation (fast escalation, n = 70), oral placebo (n = 71; double-blind) or once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide of 1.0 mg (n = 70) for 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was change in hemoglobing A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26. Secondary end points included change from baseline in body weight and adverse events. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Of the 632 randomized patients (mean age, 57.1 years [SD, 10.6]; men, 395 (62.7%); diabetes duration, 6.3 years [SD, 5.2]; body weight, 92.3 kg [SD, 16.8]; BMI, 31.7 [SD, 4.3]), 583 (92%) completed the trial. Mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 26 decreased with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, 0.7% to 1.9%) and subcutaneous semaglutide (1.9%) and placebo (0.3%); oral semaglutide reductions were significant vs placebo (dosage-dependent estimated treatment difference [ETD] range for oral semaglutide vs placebo, 0.4% to 1.6%; P = .01 for 2.5 mg, <.001 for all other dosages). Reductions in body weight were greater with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, 2.1 kg to 6.9 kg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (6.4 kg) vs placebo (1.2 kg), and significant for oral semaglutide dosages of 10 mg or more vs placebo (dosage-dependent ETD range, 0.9 to 5.7 kg; P < .001). Adverse events were reported by 63% to 86% (371 of 490 patients) in the oral semaglutide groups, 81% (56 of 69 patients) in the subcutaneous semaglutide group, and 68% (48 of 71 patients) in the placebo group; mild to moderate gastrointestinal events were most common. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide resulted in better glycemic control than placebo over 26 weeks. These findings support phase 3 studies to assess longer-term and clinical outcomes, as well as safety. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01923181
Solution:
Effect of Oral Semaglutide Compared With Placebo and Subcutaneous Semaglutide on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial