A pharmacist's perspective: Proceedings from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference: An Evidence-Based Approach to Prescribing NSAIDs in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent events such as the withdrawal of rofecoxib and valdecoxib from the marketplace have led to confusion among physicians and patients about the safety of coxibs. Eight evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate and safe use of NSAIDs/coxibs were made by the Third Canadian Consensus Conference Group on the following specific topics: patient-physician communication, indication for the use of NSAIDs, gastrointestinal toxicity, renal considerations, hypertension, cardiovascular risk, geriatric considerations, and pharmacoeconomics. This article discusses how pharmacists are to interpret new observations regarding the safety and efficacy of coxibs/NSAIDs, and what role pharmacists should play in maximizing the appropriate and safe use of NSAIDs based on the evidence-based guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".