Pain relief in osteoarthritis: patients' willingness to risk medication-induced gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular complications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Information concerning patients' preferences for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited. We examined patients' attitudes toward the acceptability of gastrointestinal, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events in order to obtain pain relief from OA. METHODS: Patients responded to a set of threshold technique tasks. Each task described 2 treatment options, their levels of pain relief, and the risks of side effects. The risk for the side effect under investigation was then systematically increased to reveal the maximal acceptable risk increment associated with the pain reduction. RESULTS: Of 196 patients, 22.3% and 14.7% were unwilling to accept any additional risk of stomach bleed or heart attack/stroke for 2-point and 5-point pain reductions, respectively. Patients were willing to accept significantly more risk for a 5-point pain reduction than for a 2-point pain reduction in stomach bleed and heart attack/stroke scenarios. Patients also accepted significantly greater additional risks of stomach bleed compared to heart attack/stroke for 2-point and 5-point pain reductions. CONCLUSION: Most patients with OA are willing to accept some additional risk of stomach bleed and heart attack/stroke to gain pain relief. Patients are willing to accept greater additional risk of stomach bleed than heart attack/stroke. However, there exists considerable variation in risk-taking attitudes across patients. We recommend that clinicians examine the risk attitude and treatment preferences of each patient on an individual basis when deciding on a treatment regimen.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".