Gastroprotective strategies among NSAID users: guidelines for appropriate use in chronic illness.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review proper use of gastroprotective strategies in family medicine for patients requiring chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Evidence of the efficacy and safety of strategies currently in use (prostaglandin analogues, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors) is derived from randomized controlled trials (level I evidence). The simultaneous use of multiple medications for very high-risk NSAID users is supported only by expert opinion (level III evidence). MAIN MESSAGE: Gastroprotective strategies should be reserved for NSAID users at substantially increased risk of gastrointestinal complications; low-risk patients can safely use NSAIDs alone. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, prostaglandin analogues, and proton pump inhibitors reduce the risk of NSAID-related gastointestinal complications by 40% to 90%. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors should be avoided by patients who have or are at risk for cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSION: Chronic NSAID use has been implicated in the development of severe and potentially life-threatening gastointestinal complications, though certain strategies are known to decrease the risk of these NSAID-related gastointestinal complications. Prescribing physicians must know which of their patients should be prescribed medications and which strategies are appropriate for particular patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".