A matched case-control study to assess the association between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and thrombotic microangiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several case reports suggest that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use is associated with development of thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). We conducted a matched population-based case-control study using linked administrative healthcare data in Ontario, Canada to assess the relationship between TMA hospitalization and recent exposure to prescription NSAIDs versus acetaminophen (acetaminophen was chosen as the referent drug because it has no known association with TMA). Cases and controls were drawn from a source population of adults who filled a prescription for either NSAIDs or acetaminophen between 1991 and 2015 (restricted to adults with prescription drug benefits [n = 3.6 million]). We identified 44 eligible cases with a hospital admission for incident TMA and a recent prescription for NSAIDs or acetaminophen. We successfully matched 38 cases (1:4) to 152 controls without TMA on demographics, risk factors for TMA, and indications for NSAID use. Cases and controls were similar with respect to age (71 years) and sex (63% women); however, on average, cases had more comorbidities than controls (12 vs. 14; p<0.05) and more primary care visits in the year before the index date (19 vs. 12; p<0.05). Cases were significantly less likely than controls to have received a recent prescription for NSAIDs (19/38 [50%] vs. 115/152 [76%], respectively; adjusted odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 0.84). Results were similar in several sensitivity analyses. Overall, the results of this study do not support a harmful association between NSAID use and the development of TMA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".