MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4291002851 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.09.22278566

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the risk of lung cancer among patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

2022· preprint· en· W4291002851 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha B. Shapiro, Hui Yin, Oriana Hoi Yun Yu, Laurent Azoulay

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioDipeptidyl peptidase-4Internal medicineType 2 diabetesLung cancerProportional hazards modelCohortPropensity score matchingDiabetes mellitusRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyOncologyConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To determine whether the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, compared to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, is associated with a decreased risk of incident lung cancers among patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods We assembled a new-user, active comparator cohort of SGLT-2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor users using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We fit Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine stratification weighting to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident lung cancers. Results Crude lung cancer incidence rates were 0.92 and 1.37 per 1,000 person-years among 47,517 SGLT-2 inhibitor and 129,807 DPP-4 inhibitor users, respectively. No reduced risk of lung cancer was observed among SGLT-2 inhibitor users after weighting (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.78–1.48). Conclusions: In this large cohort study, the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors was not associated with a decreased risk of lung cancer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances→French-language works237,207→