Oral Hypoglycemics in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Peripheral Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, in 2010, 202 million people were living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), with a prevalence between 3–12%. The prevalence of PAD is 3 times greater in diabetic patients compared to those with normal glycemia. PAD of the limbs is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as major adverse limb events including acute limb ischemia and amputation. These risks are particularly high in patients who smoke and/or have type 2 diabetes. The goal of treatment in diabetic patients with PAD is to prevent cardiovascular events and prevent further peripheral artery stenosis leading to limb ischemia, and amputation. Poor glycemic control contributes to atherosclerotic progression; however, no randomized control trial evidence exists that demonstrates improved glycemic control reduces the risk of PAD. Oral diabetic medications are designed to lower glucose levels, reduce symptoms and the microvascular complications of diabetes without the inconvenience of daily injections. However, the data supporting the benefit of these medications in diabetic populations with concurrent PAD are limited. We review the evidence for oral hypoglycemic agents in the treatment of patients with concurrent PAD and diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".