Rationale and design of the Glitazones and the Endothelium (GATE) study: evaluation of rosiglitazone on endothelial function in patients with diabetes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vascular endothelium has emerged as a critical determinant of cardiovascular health and disease, and improving endothelial function is an important target for therapy. Accumulating evidence suggests that insulin resistance in patients with diabetes and the metabolic syndrome may impair endothelial function, uncovering a proinflammatory, proatherosclerotic vascular phenotype. The rationale and design of the Glitazones and the Endothelium (GATE) study is presented. The GATE study is a randomized, double-blind study for the evaluation of the effects of rosiglitazone versus placebo on endothelial function when used as an add-on therapy in patients with diabetes currently treated with oral therapy. It is hypothesized that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonist rosiglitazone will improve endothelium-dependent vasodilation, and that this effect will be related to improvements in insulin sensitivity, with concomitant reductions in whole-body insulin resistance. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of rosiglitazone will be additive to those of existing oral therapies that may modulate endothelial function. Because endothelial dysfunction plays a pivotal role in the development and progression of atherosclerosis, the GATE study may provide the rationale and impetus for the aggressive treatment of insulin-resistant patients with glitazone therapy.
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 | 0.030 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
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".