DPP-4 Inhibitors and Heart Failure: Some Reassurance, Some Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2016 recommends the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in combination with metformin as a second- or third-line treatment for type 2 diabetes (1). Owing to their relatively high costs, many jurisdictions restrict their use to patients whose glycemia remains poorly controlled on metformin–sulfonylurea combination therapy. By inhibiting DPP-4 activity, these agents increase postprandial incretin concentrations, thereby increasing insulin secretion and decreasing glucagon secretion (1). With intermediate efficacy, a low risk of hypoglycemia, neutral effects on body weight, and relatively rare adverse effects (1), their use has increased considerably since their 2006 entry into the U.S. market (2). Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding their potential association with serious adverse effects including acute pancreatitis (3), pancreatic cancer (3), and heart failure (HF) (4). [...]
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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".