MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972107819 · doi:10.1111/dom.13876

Effects of sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes in women versus men

2019· article· en· W2972107819 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Rådholm, Zien Zhou, Kristin K. Clemens, Bruce Neal, Mark Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmpagliflozinType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineDapagliflozinAdverse effectCanagliflozinPlaceboEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors prevent cardiovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. We aimed to study whether they have similar effects in women and men by summarizing the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to placebo on vascular and safety outcomes stratified by sex. We included patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS Program, DECLARE TIMI-58 and CREDENCE trials. There were no differences in the risk ratios between men and women, SGLT2 versus control (placebo), for vascular efficacy outcomes or death (all P for interaction ≥.12), with clear protection shown against major adverse cardiovascular events, heart failure, vascular death and total mortality. SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was also associated with similar relative risks in women and men for the safety outcomes of amputation, fracture, genital infection and urinary tract infection (all P for interaction ≥.17). SGLT2 inhibition provided similar protection against vascular risks and death, and similar risks of serious adverse events, for women and men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207