Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 15, 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing antidiabetic agents with placebo and/or another active antidiabetic agent for the treatment of AD or MCI. Nineteen eligible studies (n = 4855) evaluating the effects of 6 different antidiabetic drugs (i.e. intranasal insulin, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, metformin, sitagliptin and liraglutide) were included. The results of 29 pairwise comparisons indicated that cognition was significantly improved in subjects treated with antidiabetic agents compared with placebo. Pioglitazone 15 to 30 mg demonstrated the greatest efficacy compared to placebo in network meta-analysis. No significant differences in acceptability were identified when comparing agents with each other and with placebo. The current findings indicate a pro-cognitive class effect of antidiabetic agents in AD/MCI. Other antidiabetic agents should also be investigated in future studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".