The Risk of Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Oral Agent Monotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine if the risk of developing heart failure (HF) is associated with the use of sulfonylurea or metformin in patients with diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all adults without HF newly treated with oral antidiabetic drugs in Saskatchewan, Canada between 1991 and 1999. RESULTS: Of 5,631 diabetic subjects (mean age 66+/-13 years) newly treated with a single oral agent and followed for 4.7 (+/-2.2) years, 981 developed HF (4.1 cases per 100 patient years). The incidence of HF was greater in patients using sulfonylurea monotherapy (4.4 cases per 100 treatment years) than those taking metformin monotherapy (3.3 cases per 100 years), and users of high-dose sulfonylureas were more likely to develop incident HF than users of high-dose metformin (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.54). Users of high-dose sulfonylureas were also more likely to develop HF (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20-1.60) than users of low-dose sulfonylureas; no such association existed for metformin users (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: Users of higher doses of sulfonylurea exhibited a greater risk of developing HF. Clinicians should carefully weigh the need for high-dose sulfonylurea therapy in diabetic subjects with, or at high risk of, HF.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".