Oral hypoglycemic agents for gestational diabetes mellitus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), the most frequent medical complication of pregnancy, is associated with several adverse outcomes over the short- and long-term for both mother and offspring. Standard treatment for GDM consists of insulin injections. Oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), on the other hand, are still the subject of controversy. Although OHAs are seemingly as efficient as insulin and may provide better quality of life, congenital malformations and unknown long-term effects are still feared. AREAS COVERED: Recent data on the pharmacokinetics of two OHAs (glyburide and metformin) and their clinical use for GDM are reviewed, with a focus on clinical trials and observational studies comparing insulin with glyburide or metformin (1960 - 2010). The review will provide a comprehensive overview of the pros and cons of OHA usage, an appreciation of OHAs' efficiency for the purpose of controlling glycemia and embryogenetic basics relating to congenital malformations. EXPERT OPINION: While insulin treatment is an effective therapy for controlling maternal glycemia, it nevertheless requires sufficient education and skills on the part of the patient to manage properly and may cause hypoglycemia, fear and anxiety. Oral treatment as a more user-friendly alternative may thus facilitate the control of GDM in some patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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.
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".