Oral Corticosteroid Use and the Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the limited efficacy of oral corticosteroids in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the possible cardiac side effects of oral corticosteroids are of particular concern in an elderly population. The impact of the use of oral corticosteroids on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a cohort of patients with COPD was studied. METHODS: The Saskatchewan health services databases were used to form a population-based cohort of 5648 patients aged 55 years or older who received a first treatment for COPD between 1990 and 1997. A nested case-control analysis was conducted: 371 cases presenting with a first myocardial infarction were matched with 1864 controls according to the length of follow-up, the date of cohort entry and age. Conditional logistic regression was used to adjust for sex, severity of COPD, systemic hypertension, diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Only the current use of corticosteroids was associated with an increased risk of AMI (adjusted RR=2.01 [95% CI 1.13 to 3.58]), particularly when the current dose was larger than 25 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent (adjusted RR=3.22 [95% CI 1.42 to 7.34]). This observed increase in risk rapidly returned to baseline after the cessation of the medication, suggesting that the use of such high doses reflected the treatment of acute exacerbations of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: An association was found between the current use of oral corticosteroids and the occurrence of an AMI, suggesting that acute exacerbations of COPD are associated with an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".