Variation in Association Between Thiazolidinediones and Heart Failure Across Ethnic Groups: Retrospective analysis of Large Healthcare Claims Databases in Six Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of polymorphisms among the metabolising enzymes and pharmacodynamic receptors relevant for the thiazolidinediones differs by ethnic group, a factor that may modify risk of adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine if the risk of oedema or heart failure associated with the thiazolidinediones varies in populations in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. METHODS: Sequence symmetry analyses were undertaken to investigate the risk of peripheral oedema, as measured by incident furosemide dispensing, and risk of hospitalisations for heart failure. Results were pooled, with Australia and Canada representing predominantly Caucasian population and all other countries contributing to Asian population estimates. RESULTS: Pooled estimates of risk for furosemide initiation in the Caucasian populations were significantly increased for pioglitazone [adjusted sequence ratio (ASR) 1.47; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.91] and rosiglitazone (ASR 1.65; 95 % CI 1.58-1.72), while in the Asian populations, the pooled risk estimates were lower (ASR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.93-1.32 and ASR 1.21; 95 % CI 1.01-1.45 for pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively). Results for hospitalisation for heart failure showed a similar trend, with elevated risk in the Australian data (ASR 1.88; 95 % CI 1.01-3.5 and ASR 1.25; 95 % CI 0.76-2.05 for pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively), while no increased risk was found in the pooled results for the Asian populations. CONCLUSION: The risk of both oedema and heart failure with thiazolidinediones was higher in predominantly Caucasian countries than in the Asian countries assessed. Assessment of adverse events by ethnicity may support safer medicine use.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".