Cardiovascular Outcome Trials in Type 2 Diabetes: What Do They Mean for Clinical Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes, and deaths from heart disease are two to four times higher among adults with type 2 diabetes. Trials such as the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study, ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes), ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation), and VADT (Veteran's Affairs Diabetes Trial) produced mixed findings regarding whether intensive glycemic control results in improved cardiovascular (CV) outcomes for patients with diabetes. In response to concerns, including the CV safety of the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and subsequently the European Medicines Agency issued guidance that trials should be conducted to prove that antihyperglycemic agents have acceptable CV risk profiles. In this article, the authors review the study designs and results of CV outcomes trials conducted with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and discuss how these may affect clinical practice.
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 | 0.480 | 0.682 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".