Cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs: Additional insights after PRECISION and point of view
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing numbers of patients with arthritis use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), some for long periods. The relative cardiovascular safety of NSAID use is of considerable concern, particularly among patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease. Until recently, the evidence base was limited to older trials with small sample sizes. The large-scale Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen or Naproxen (PRECISION) trial and a recent Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data in nearly a half-million patients were undertaken to address some of the existing gaps in knowledge relative to the cardiovascular safety of NSAID use. We reviewed the results, strengths, and limitations of PRECISION. We believe that the results of the meta-analysis will further assist clinicians in decision-making for management of patients with osteoarthritis. The totality of evidence would support avoidance of NSAID use, if possible, in patients with or at high risk for cardiovascular disease. If used, the shortest-duration and lowest effective NSAID doses should be chosen, given the evidence that risk is duration- and dose-dependent. We also provide a brief discussion of the mechanism of action of NSAIDs, along with discussion of existing guidelines and the recent meta-analysis.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it