MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968684657 · doi:10.1186/1471-2466-11-59

Risk of herpes zoster in patients prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: a cohort study

2011· article· en· W1968684657 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Ernst, Sophie Dell’Aniello, Yann Mikaeloff, Samy Suissa

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pulmonary Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioShinglesRisk factorCohort studyConcomitantCohortConfidence intervalInternal medicinePopulationImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known concerning risk factors for herpes zoster in the general population. We hypothesised that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a risk factor for herpes zoster especially among users of inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in their metabolism. METHODS: We identified a cohort of adult users of respiratory medications in the General Practice Research Database and carried out a nested case control analysis of inhaled corticosteroid use among 8900 new cases of herpes zoster and 88032 controls matching on age and calendar time. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio for the relationship between current use of ICS and the occurrence of herpes zoster was 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-1.07). There was no increase in risk of herpes zoster even at higher ICS doses; odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.14). Among subjects with concomitant prescriptions for an ICS and an inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4, the point estimate for the association between herpes zoster and the use of higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.81-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: The use of inhaled corticosteroids, even at high doses and in conjunction with inhibitors of their metabolism, was not a significant risk factor for the occurrence of herpes zoster in adults.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pulmonary MedicineSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207