Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a very short time, COX-2 enzyme inhibitors have gone from the darlings to the pariahs of the pharmaceutical industry. These drugs were developed based on the hypothesis whereby selective inhibition of the COX enzyme would lead to reduction in pain and inflammation without associated gastrointestinal and bleeding risks. However, in September 2004, rofecoxib was voluntarily removed from the market for increased cardiovascular risk and in April 2005, valdecoxib was also withdrawn, at least in part, due to excess cardiovascular risk. Celecoxib was the first COX-2 inhibitor introduced and the only remaining one on the US market. There is consequently a justified concern that cardiovascular toxicity is a class effect of all COX-2 inhibitors. This article systematically reviews the evidence surrounding COX-2 inhibitors and cardiovascular risk. Although the evidence suggests a fairly consistent cardiovascular risk with rofecoxib, the evidence for cardiovascular risk with celecoxib is more equivocal. Although isolated studies have suggested some cardiovascular risk for celecoxib, the totality of the evidence suggests that any risk is likely to be small and comparable to traditional NSAIDs. The cardiovascular risks of COX-2 inhibitors appear heterogeneous, influenced not only by the drug class, but also individual drug, dosage and patient characteristics. Specific modifying factors of the cardiovascular risk of COX-2 inhibitors including dose, concomitant drugs, individual cardiac and genetic risk profiles, will require further study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".