Differences in outcomes of patients with congestive heart failure prescribed celecoxib, rofecoxib, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of death and recurrent congestive heart failure in elderly patients prescribed celecoxib, rofecoxib, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and to determine whether there are class differences between celecoxib and rofecoxib. DESIGN: Population based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Databases of hospital discharge summaries and prescription drug claims in Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: 2256 patients aged 66 or more prescribed celecoxib, rofecoxib, or an NSAID after an index admission for congestive heart failure between April 2000 and March 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to all cause death and recurrent congestive heart failure, combined and separately. RESULTS: The risk of death and recurrent congestive heart failure combined was higher in patients prescribed NSAIDs or rofexocib than in those prescribed celecoxib (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.57 and 1.27, 1.09 to 1.49, respectively). The findings were similar when the outcomes were assessed separately. In pairwise analysis, the risks of death and recurrent congestive heart failure, combined and separate, were similar between patients prescribed NSAIDs and rofecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib seems safer than rofecoxib and NSAIDs in elderly patients with congestive heart failure. Differences were found among cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".