MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308811360 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.150771

Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with type 2 diabetes and retinopathy

2016· article· en· W2308811360 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chia‐Jen Shih, Hung‐Ta Chen, Shu‐Chen Kuo, Szu‐Yuan Li, Pi-Hsiang Lai, Shuchen Chen, Shuo‐Ming Ou, Yung‐Tai Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTaipei Veterans General Hospital
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesStroke (engine)Diabetic retinopathyAngiotensin-converting enzymeRetinopathyPopulationConfidence intervalEndocrinologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are effective treatments for diabetic retinopathy, but randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing their effects on macrovascular complications have yielded conflicting results. We compared the effectiveness of these drugs in patients with pre-existing diabetic retinopathy in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: We conducted a propensity score-matched cohort study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. We included adult patients prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB within 90 days after diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy between 2000 and 2010. Primary outcomes were all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes were hospital admissions with acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia. RESULTS: We identified 11 246 patients receiving ACE inhibitors and 15 173 receiving ARBs, of whom 9769 patients in each group were matched successfully by propensity scores. In the intention-to-treat analyses, ARBs were similar to ACE inhibitors in risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.01) and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04), including myocardial infarction (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20), ischemic stroke (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04) and cardiovascular death (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16). They also did not differ from ACE inhibitors in risk of hospital admission with acute kidney injury (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.13) and hospital admission with hyperkalemia (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.86-1.18). Results were similar in as-treated analyses. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that ACE inhibitors were similar to ARBs in risk of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events and adverse effects among patients with pre-existing diabetic retinopathy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207