Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Role of thiazolidinediones.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review evidence supporting use of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) in management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A MEDLINE search found several randomized controlled trials (level I evidence). No systematic reviews of these trials were found in the Cochrane Library. MAIN MESSAGE: Thiazolidinediones lower hemoglobin AIc levels by as much as 1.0% to 1.5%. Effects can be seen in as little as 4 weeks, but full lowering takes 6 to 12 weeks. When used in combination with other diabetic agents, such as sulfonylureas and biguanides, TZDs' hypoglycemic effects appear to be complementary. Thiazolidinediones directly improve insulin sensitivity and recovery of pancreatic beta cell function. Nevertheless, there is no evidence indicating that TZDs are superior to other antidiabetic agents currently available or that TZDs reduce the long-term complications of DM2. CONCLUSION: Ongoing trials will further define the role of TZDs in management of diabetic patients. In current practice, cost is often a factor in the decision to prescribe TZDs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".