Oral hypoglycemic therapy: Understanding the mechanisms of transplacental transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current trend towards an increase in the rate of Type 2 diabetes in women of childbearing age will inevitably result in an increasing number of women requiring hypoglycemic therapy throughout pregnancy. For patients with Type 2 diabetes or gestational diabetes, oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) represent an attractive alternative to insulin therapy. However, there exists some apprehension regarding the use of OHAs during pregnancy. Although the current accepted understanding is that most drugs administered during pregnancy can permeate the placental barrier, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the placenta is capable of limiting fetal exposure to drugs. In particular, large sets of data on the transplacental transfer and clinical use of glyburide in pregnancy have suggested that glyburide may be a safe alternative to insulin therapy. Glyburide's limited fetal transfer has been attributed to its high protein binding, rapid clearance rate and the role of placental efflux transporters such as the breast cancer resistance protein. However, there are a number of maternal, placental and fetal factors that may alter the transplacental passage of drugs used in pregnancy. Therefore, it is essential that OHAs are further investigated to determine their safety with confidence and provide better treatment options for diabetes in pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".