The CADEUS study: methods and logistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: At the request of the French Health authorities, a study called CADEUS (COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs: description of users) aimed to describe the users of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). We report here the methodology, logistics and study design performances. METHODS: CADEUS is a cohort study designed to include 40,000 patients randomly sampled monthly in the French National Healthcare Insurance database, who received at least one dispensation of celecoxib, rofecoxib or tNSAIDs (1:1:2), from September 2003 to August 2004. Patients and prescribers were asked to fill a questionnaire on indication, medical history, risk factors and hospitalizations since drug acquisition. There was no reminder. For each respondent, healthcare resources used for the 6 months before and after inclusion were extracted from the database. Response rate, response delay, responders and non-responders characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 222,879 patients and their prescribers contacted, 20.8% patients and 32.6% prescribers responded. Median response delay was 16 days for patients and 17 days for physicians. Factors associated with patient response were age, cohort, type of prescriber and period of inclusion. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of this design in France, combining data from a claims database and direct patient and prescriber questionnaires.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".