Statins and the risk of interstitial lung disease: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case reports have suggested that the use of statins may be associated with an increase in the risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD). METHODS: Within a large cohort of users of respiratory medications identified in the Quebec health administrative databases during 1990-2005, we carried out a nested case-control analysis of the relationship between statins and the risk of ILD as defined by specialist visits or hospitalisations. RESULTS: The cohort included over 1.4 million patients, of which 6665 possible or probable cases of ILD were identified during follow-up. These were compared with 26 660 controls matched for age, gender and calendar time. After adjustment for confounders and comorbid conditions, there was no association between current use of statins and risk of ILD (adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08). The results were similar when any use of statins within the previous 1 or 2 years was considered or when the analysis was limited to more definite cases. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort study did not find an association between statin use and the incidence of ILD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".