MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145441675 · doi:10.2337/dc06-2257

Suboptimal Use of Cardioprotective Drugs in Newly Treated Elderly Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes

2007· article· en· W2145441675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Sirois, Jocelyne Moisan, Paul Poirier, Jean‐Pierre Grégoire

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineGerontologyPharmacologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C ardiovascular disease is the maincomplication experienced by el-derly individuals with diabetes (1). Despite randomized trials showing the benefits of individual (2–4) or combined (5) pharmacological treatments of cardio-vascular risk factors in diabetes, observa-tional studies have shown suboptimal use of medications (6–8). However, little is known about the use of cardioprotective medication among elderly individuals who were not already taking it before di-abetes treatment was undertaken. We therefore studied a population of elderly individuals with type 2 diabetes in the province of Quebec, Canada, who had not been treated with any antihyperten-sive, lipid-lowering, or antiplatelet drugs in the year before oral antidiabetes drug initiation. We assessed whether they used a comprehensive cardioprotective regi-men (CCR) of those three medications in the year following oral antidiabetic initia-tion. We also identified the determinants of a CCR use.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207