Thiazolidinediones increased risk for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death in older patients with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club17 June 2008Thiazolidinediones increased risk for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death in older patients with type 2 diabetesRaj Padwal, MDRaj Padwal, MDUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (R.P.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-12-200806170-02013 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationLipscombe LL, Gomes T, Lévesque LE, et al. Thiazolidinediones and cardiovascular outcomes in older patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2007;298:2634-43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18073359Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Cardiology: Endocrinology: Geriatrics: References1 Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2457-71. [PMID: 17517853] Google Scholar2 Krall RL. Cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone [letter]. Lancet. 2007;369:1995-6. [PMID: 17574083] Google Scholar3 Lago RM, Singh PP, Nesto RW. Congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death in patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes given thiazolidinediones: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;370:1129-36. [PMID: 17905165] Google Scholar4 Cleland JG, Atkin SL. Thiazolidinediones, deadly sins, surrogates, and elephants [comment]. Lancet. 2007;370:1103-4. [PMID: 17905146] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (R.P.)This article was published at Annals.org on 3 June 2008. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 17 June 2008Volume 148, Issue 12Page: JC4-13KeywordsCohort studiesDrugsHeart failureHospitalizationsHypoglycemicsInsulinMyocardial infarctionRisk managementType 2 diabetes ePublished: 17 June 2008 Issue Published: 17 June 2008 CopyrightCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".