MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977529082 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5537894

Cardiovascular outcomes with sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors vs other glucose-lowering drugs in 13 countries across three continents: analysis of CVD-REAL data

2021· other· en· W6977529082 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropensity score matchingMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)Hazard ratioHeart failureDiabetes mellitusClinical trialProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Randomized, controlled cardiovascular outcome trials may not be fully representative of the management of patients with type 2 diabetes across different geographic regions. We conducted analyses of data from the multinational CVD-REAL consortium to determine the association between initiation of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and cardiovascular outcomes, including subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics. Methods De-identified health records from 13 countries across three continents were used to identify patients newly-initiated on SGLT-2i or other glucose-lowering drugs (oGLDs). Propensity scores for SGLT-2i initiation were developed in each country, with 1:1 matching for oGLD initiation. In the matched groups hazard ratios (HRs) for hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), all-cause death (ACD), the composite of HHF or ACD, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke were estimated by country, and pooled using a weighted meta-analysis. Multiple subgroup analyses were conducted across patient demographic and clinical characteristics to examine any heterogeneity in treatment effects. Results Following matching, 440,599 new users of SGLT-2i and oGLDs were included in each group. Mean follow-up time was 396 days for SGLT-2i initiation and 406 days for oGLDs initiation. SGLT-2i initiation was associated with a lower risk of HHF (HR: 0.66, 95%CI 0.58–0.75; p < 0.001), ACD (HR: 0.52, 95%CI 0.45–0.60; p < 0.001), the composite of HHF or ACD (HR: 0.60, 95%CI 0.53–0.68; p < 0.001), MI (HR: 0.85, 95%CI 0.78–0.92; p < 0.001), and stroke (HR: 0.78, 95%CI 0.72–0.85; p < 0.001); regardless of patient characteristics, including established cardiovascular disease, or geographic region. Conclusions This CVD-REAL study extends the findings from the SGLT-2i clinical trials to the broader setting of an ethnically and geographically diverse population, and across multiple subgroups. Trial registration NCT02993614

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207