MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411347414 · doi:10.2337/db25-0393

Therapeutic Targeting of the GIP Receptor—Revisiting the Controversies

2025· review· en· W4411347414 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan E. Campbell, Daniel J. Drucker

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAgonismExenatideAntagonismReceptorGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorGlucagon-like peptide-1Body weightBiologyMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPolitical scienceAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current and emerging strategies to therapeutically target weight management include pairing agonism of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) with either agonism or antagonism of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor (GIPR). On the surface, these two approaches seem contradictory, yet they have produced similar effects for weight loss in clinical studies. Arguments that support the rationale for both approaches are made in these point-counterpoint articles, founded on preclinical studies, human genetics, and clinical outcomes. Here, we attempt to reconcile how two opposing approaches can produce similar effects on body weight by evaluating the leading hypotheses derived from the available evidence.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
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)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207