MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608794164 · doi:10.14740/jocmr3011w

Hemodynamic Effects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors

2017· review· en· W2608794164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Motoaki Sano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionDiabetes mellitusCardiologyInternal medicineDapagliflozinHeart failureGlycemicCoronary artery diseaseHemodynamicsDiabetic cardiomyopathyType 2 Diabetes MellitusRenal glucose reabsorptionType 2 diabetesCardiomyopathyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increase the risk of heart failure (HF) independently of underlying coronary artery disease. The changes in myocardial structure or function associated with diabetes have been termed diabetic cardiomyopathy. Corresponding to changes in the risk factors for HF, an epidemiologic transition is underway from HF with a reduced ejection fraction to HF with a preserved ejection fraction. Hyperglycemia can damage the myocardium, even before diagnosis of diabetes, but intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of HF in patients with T2DM. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which inhibit renal reabsorption of glucose, decrease the risk of HF in T2DM patients. The cardioprotective mechanisms involved appear to be multifactorial and have been the subject of considerable debate. This review focuses on the hemodynamic effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients and the mechanisms by which these drugs decrease the risk of HF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207