Adverse Cardiac Events Among Older Patients on Venlafaxine: A Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is unknown whether the common antidepressant, venlafaxine, is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Objective: To examine the cardiac safety of venlafaxine in older individuals. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study (Ontario, Canada) compared patients aged >=66 years who commenced treatment with venlafaxine, sertraline or citalopram between 2000 and 2009. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or heart failure within the first year of therapy. Results: Following inverse probability of treatment weighting with the propensity score, we found no difference in the primary outcome with venlafaxine relative to sertraline (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.02). When compared to citalopram, however, an increased risk was observed (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.62). Conclusions: As compared with sertraline, venlafaxine was not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiac events. The increased risk observed in the venlafaxine -citalopram comparison warrants 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".