MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of the economic evidence for acarbose in the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular events in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance

2006· review· en· W2138224856 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert G. Josse, Alistair McGuire, G. B. Saal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcarboseMedicineImpaired glucose toleranceMetforminDiabetes mellitusPlaceboType 2 Diabetes MellitusInternal medicineDiseaseType 2 diabetesGerontologyEndocrinologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The highly prevalent, prediabetic condition of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) confers a high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is an emerging body of cost-effectiveness literature in the management of IGT. For acarbose, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, economic analyses have been conducted for Spain, Germany, Sweden and Canada. In Spain, acarbose was more effective and less costly (dominant) compared with placebo. In Germany, the cost per patient free of diabetes was under Pounds 800; acarbose was dominant for those at high risk for T2DM, CVD or both, and a similar outcome in the Swedish study. In Canada, acarbose was dominant compared with no intervention and very cost-effective compared with metformin [C Dollars 1798/life years gained (LYG)]. The particularly cost-effective outcomes or cost savings delivered by acarbose for IGT subjects at high risk for T2DM and/or CVD render an IGT-intervention program prioritised to such high-risk individuals an economically attractive strategy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207