MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981553020 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0117

4113Glucose lowering drugs or strategies, major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure outcomes, and association with weight loss - meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials

2019· article· en· W2981553020 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia R. Ghosh‐Swaby, Shaun G. Goodman, Lawrence A. Leiter, Alice Cheng, Kim A. Connelly, David Fitchett, Peter Jüni, Michael E. Farkouh, Jacob A. Udell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceMedicineInternal medicineHeart failureAdverse effectRelative riskWeight lossMeta-analysisDiabetes mellitusCardiologyClinical trialLower riskObesityConfidence intervalMyocardial infarctionEndocrinologyPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Glucose lowering drugs or strategies (GLDS) have varied effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and heart failure (HF) in cardiovascular outcomes trials. Mechanisms driving cardiovascular risk reduction remain elusive. Methods We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and meeting abstracts up to 11/21/2018 for large GLDS cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) in patients with or at risk for type 2 diabetes. Primary endpoints of MACE and HF were evaluated with random effects risk ratios (RR) and explored by baseline CVD subgroups and meta-regression by weight change across treatment arms. Results In 27 GLDS CVOTs, a total 207,820 patients, median age 63 years, 64% male, 64% CVD and 11% with prior HF were studied over a mean 3.8 years with 20,118 (10%) patients having MACE and 7,212 (4%) a HF event. Compared with standard care, GLDS overall lowered MACE (RR 0.92, P<0.ehz745.01171) but not HF (RR 1.01, P=0.91). Across GLDS, the magnitude and directionality varied modestly for MACE RR (P-int=0.07) but markedly for HF (P-int<0.ehz745.01171). Meta-regression showed a change in HF RR by 6% (95% CI 3%-9%) per 1 kg weight gain/loss between treatment arms (P=0.0006; Figure). In 9 trials of GLDS that achieved marked weight loss (lifestyle, GLP1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors), MACE benefit was confined to patients with baseline CVD (RR 0.89 [0.84–0.95] versus without (RR 1.02 [0.91–1.15]; P-int=0.01) with consistent HF effect (RR 0.80 [0.72–0.88] vs RR 0.76 [0.56–1.03]; P-int=0.74). Heart Failure Risk and Changes in Weight Conclusion HF outcomes were improved with GLDS that lower weight. Among diabetes GLDS that lower weight, there was a robust risk reduction in atherothrombotic and heart failure events, with the MACE benefit confined to patients with established CVD. Acknowledgement/Funding Heart and Stroke Foundation

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.042
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→