MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1974540375 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.081713

Thiazolidinediones: Do harms outweigh benefits?

2008· letter· en· W1974540375 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Lorraine L. Lipscombe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsRosiglitazonePioglitazoneMedicineGlycemicDiabetes mellitusThiazolidinedioneDrugIntensive care medicineDrug approvalType 2 diabetesPharmacologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been recent debate about the risks and benefits of the use of thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone) to treat diabetes. Similar to all other drugs used to treat diabetes, thiazolidinediones were approved by drug regulatory bodies based on their ability to improve glycemic

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0450.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→