MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7154877938

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease

2025· dissertation· W7154877938 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Yuan Tzer Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceKidney diseaseCohortDiseaseAdverse effectStroke (engine)Retrospective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis describes a population-based cohort study that characterizes the real-world effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) in individuals with chronic kidney disease in Ontario. This population-based retrospective cohort study compared 24,576 new users of GLP1RA to 44,367 new users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), all of whom had eGFR <90ml/min/1.73m2. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, non-fatal ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death. MACE occurred among 1296 (31.6 per 1000 person-years) GLP1RA users vs. 1374 (36.5 per 1000 person-years) DPP-4i users (sHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). The reduction in MACE was largely driven by a lower risk of cardiovascular death among GLP1RA users (sHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.85). In conclusion, in a population-based study of individuals with CKD, GLP1RA initiation was associated with a reduction in MACE.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→