Pioglitazone in Combination with Insulin – An Overview of Results from PROactive
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pioglitazone provides one of several add-on therapy options for patients with unsatisfactory glycaemic control treated with insulin. Although pioglitazone has the beneficial feature of low hypoglycaemia risk, it has an overlapping adverse event profile with insulin in terms of oedema (with the potential to exacerbate heart failure) and weight gain, leading to possible concern over their use in combination. Fortunately, subgroup analyses from the PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive) have provided valuable insights into the efficacy and safety profile of pioglitazone in patients on established insulin therapy. Pioglitazone improved glycaemic control and lipids, while enabling patients to reduce their insulin requirements. Oedema and weight were predictable with no excess exacerbation of heart failure with the combination. Importantly, pioglitazone had a good macrovascular safety profile (with a trend towards benefit), consistent with the overall population. This article provides an overview of the results from the insulin-treated subgroup in PROactive and highlights some of the clinical implications for pioglitazone–insulin combination therapy.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it