A systematic review of observational studies of the association between pioglitazone use and bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To conduct a systematic review of all observational studies on the effect of pioglitazone on the risk of bladder cancer. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were queried for papers published between 1 January 2000 and 30 October 2017. We took into consideration observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) that included participants with Type 2 diabetes prescribed anti-hyperglycaemic drugs. RESULTS: While some studies reported an association, others did not, and meta-analyses of these studies showed a significantly increased risk; however, while meta-analysis is a powerful and practical statistical tool, its results should be considered with caution when applied to widely heterogeneous studies. We describe how many of these studies are affected by different types of bias, most notably time-related biases, which should preclude a pooled analysis that would result in biased estimation of the risk. CONCLUSIONS: Given existing data, it is not appropriate to pool the outcomes of highly heterogeneous studies and further rigorously conducted observational research is needed to clarify the role of pioglitazone use on the incidence of bladder cancer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".