MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464778734

Exploring the Distribution of Prescription for Sulfonylureas in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes According to Cardiovascular Risk Factors Within a Canadian Primary Care Setting.

2015· article· en· W2464778734 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pendar Farahani, Shahriar Khan, Mark A. Oatway, Alison Dziarmaga

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusMyocardial infarctionBody mass indexCohortFamily historyDiseaseType 2 diabetesInternal medicineCohort studyStroke (engine)Medical prescriptionEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence generated from observational studies and meta-analyses has begun to illustrate the potential adverse cardiovascular (CV) risk profile associated with sulfonylurea (SU) use. Specifically, the use of an SU has been demonstrated to be associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of stroke with more CV events associated with SU use having been reported in subgroups of patients with a history of CV disease, elderly and a higher body mass index. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to explore the distribution of established atherosclerotic CV disease and CV risk factors amongst patients with diabetes on an SU using a Canadian primary care dataset for the 2013 calendar year. METHODS: The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN), which is a multi-disease surveillance system based on primary care electronic medical record data, was utilized for this research study. Patients with a diagnosis of diabetes and exposure to an SU were identified. Distribution/prevalence of CV risk profile amongst this sub-cohort was explored. RESULTS: In analyzing the CPCSSN database for the 2013 calendar year, 6150 patients were identified as having diabetes, at least one visit with their family doctor, and on an SU. For this sub-cohort, demographic data was as follows: age [mean (SD)] 65.4(12.8) years-old; 56.4% male and mean BMI 31.3(10.0). Established atherosclerotic CV disease was observed in 16.8% of the patients with the following distribution: 13.2% had ischemic heart disease/myocardial infarction or coronary artery disease; 2.4% had stroke; and 2.3% had peripheral vascular disease. Regarding the aggregation of CV risk factors, a large proportion (65%) of patients without established atherosclerotic CV disease presented with 2 or more CV risk factors including: hypertension (62%), dyslipidemia (33%), active smoking (13%), and obesity (43%). Almost half of the cohort (45%) were males older than 55 years of age or females older than 60 years of age with at least one of the following risk factors: dyslipidemia, hypertension or current smoking, but without established cardiovascular disease. A large proportion of patients (19.5%) had a diagnosis of cardiac-specific issues including ischemic heart disease/myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease, heart failure (not due to ischemic heart disease/myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease), or arrhythmia. Almost 82% of patients had either established atherosclerotic CV disease or 2 or more CV risk factors without established atherosclerotic CV disease. CONCLUSION: This study illustrated that in this dataset of Canadian patients with diabetes in a primary care setting, a substantial proportion of patients treated with an SU in 2013 had established CV disease and/or an aggregation of multiple CV risk factors. In light of recent data reporting on an association between SU utilization and CV events and increased mortality, pharmacovigilance programs should actively monitor SU utilization in patients with diabetes and a high risk CV profile in real world clinical settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207