MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392244836 · doi:10.14740/cr1600

Pulse of Progress: A Systematic Review of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Cardiovascular Health

2024· review· en· W4392244836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Sabina, Mrhaf Alsamman

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSemaglutideObesityDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesGlucagon-like peptide-1Glucagon receptorExenatideCardiovascular healthGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorType 2 Diabetes MellitusIntensive care medicineInternal medicineInsulinLiraglutideEndocrinologyReceptorDiseaseGlucagonAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity has increased globally over the past 50 years, affecting over 500 million adults worldwide in 2023. A novel class of drugs known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have emerged as a beacon of hope in treating the pandemic of diabetes and obesity. This analysis' objective was to draw comparisons of how these medications reduce cardiovascular outcomes. The review revealed unique differences in GLP-1s, highlighting some of their strengths and weaknesses and which populations they can cater to preferentially. Even though all drugs in question of this review are proven to be efficacious for diabetes and obesity, differences in their cardiovascular safety profiles and efficacy were noted. The analysis recognized the potential of drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide, as leaders in the space. Although this current assessment of where GLP-1 receptor agonists stand in regard to cardiovascular outcomes may still be premature, the space is extremely active, and there are trials that are highly anticipated to transform the landscape of diabetes and obesity management in patients with more established cardiovascular comorbidities in the near future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207