Cancer risk of sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that oral hypoglycemic agents used in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may affect cancer risk. Sulfonylureas (SUs) are the most frequently used antidiabetic medications for T2DM. Whether using SUs has any effect on cancer has received considerable attention. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of SUs on cancer risk in T2DM patients. METHODS: Published studies were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Studies, and ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for additional information to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. The abstracts and full text were screened, data collected, and the risk of bias assessed for each individual study. RESULTS: Seventy-seven studies (33 RCTs, 27 cohort studies, and 17 case-control studies) were analyzed. The RCTs did not report a difference in the risk of malignant tumor between SU-treated T2DM patients and controls (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.18); cohort studies showed that cancer risk was higher in patients using SUs than metformin (relative risk 1.60 [95%CI 1.37-1.87]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 [95%CI 1.06-1.19]), and case-control studies suggested a trend for increased cancer risk in those using SUs compared with non-SU users (adjusted OR 1.13; 95%CI 0.93-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence clearly shows that SUs can significantly increase the risk of cancer compared with metformin. Although the evidence suggests the possibility that SU users may have a higher risk of cancer than those using alternative medications in addition to metformin, it remains inadequate to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".