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 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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".