Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer Prevention: Counterpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspirin is the best chemoprevention agent for colorectal cancer risk reduction despite the fact that the evidence for a decrease in mortality is weak. The cyclooxygenase-2 selective agents (COXIBS) have an efficacy similar to that of aspirin for most gastrointestinal (GI) lesions but not esophagus. Specifically, there are beneficial short term effects of COXIBs on the risk of colorectal adenoma as shown in the Approve, PreSAP, and APC studies. However, there is still an increased risk of upper GI complications with COXIBs when compared with placebo, and this risk may increase further in some people when aspirin is also consumed. Whereas aspirin reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, COXIBs and most traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (but not all) are both associated with an increased risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events compared with placebo. In conclusion, COXIBs have a niche role for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. The value of aspirin remains with respect for efficacy, mainly in the esophagus, and the side effect profile, especially in the elderly if given with acid suppression therapy. COXIBs should be used in younger populations, but if they are considered in the elderly because of increased GI risks, and the cardiovascular risk is also increased, then combination treatment with aspirin and a proton-pump inhibitor should also be considered instead, such as in the ASPECT trial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".