MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2416445012 · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30676-4

The “Glitazones”: Rosiglitazone and Pioglitazone

2003· review· en· W2416445012 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christine Papoushek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRosiglitazonePioglitazoneMetforminGynecologyType 2 Diabetes MellitusType 2 diabetesInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are two new additions to the therapeutic options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. These agents differ from our current therapies in their mode of action. They have potential non-glucose lowering effects that may reduce cardiovascular risk and are effective both as monotherapy and in combination with sulfonylureas, metformin, and insulin. They are generally well tolerated, with the main side effects being weight gain and fluid retention. However, special precaution is warranted in patients with congestive heart failure or hepatic disease, and monitoring of liver enzymes is recommended for the first year of therapy. Despite their effectiveness, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone remain second-line agents to metformin and glyburide, agents that have demonstrated efficacy in decreasing the microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→