Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is a well-recognized risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. In recent years, several new glucose-lowering drugs (GLD) have shown improvements in cardiovascular outcomes, renewing interest of cardiovascular specialists in diabetes management. RECENT FINDINGS: Individual studies in the last 5 years have demonstrated the cardiovascular safety of certain dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Recent meta-analyses have attempted to demonstrate class effects of these medications, but remain driven by several large studies. Other studies have used registry data to show improvements in cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving new GLD compared with insulin therapy. The cardiovascular benefits of GLD are so attractive that these agents have been applied to patients without diabetes, though these studies have not borne a net clinical benefit in nondiabetic patients. SUMMARY: An evolving body of literature now supports the safety profile of many new GLDs in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. Several new agents have demonstrated improvements in cardiovascular outcomes and are now recommended as second-line agents after metformin in patients with cardiovascular disease. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".