Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the emerging classes of antihyperglycemic agents that target the incretin pathway, including their therapeutic efficacy and side effect profiles, in order to help identify their place among the treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Most evidence is level I and II. MAIN MESSAGE: Two classes of incretin agents are currently available: glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, both of which lower hyperglycemia considerably without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. The GLP1 receptor agonists have a greater effect on patients' glycated hemoglobin A(1c) levels and cause sustained weight loss, whereas the DPP4 inhibitors are weight-neutral. CONCLUSION: The GLP1 and DPP4 incretin agents, promising and versatile antihyperglycemic agents, are finding their way into the therapeutic algorithm for treating type 2 diabetes. They can be used in patients not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy or as initial therapy in those for whom metformin is contraindicated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".