MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining the Nocebo Effect of Statins Through Statin Adverse Events Reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

2020· article· en· W3100962608 on OpenAlexaff
Jungyeon Moon, Robert Cohen Sedgh, Cynthia A. Jackevicius

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectRosuvastatinAdverse Event Reporting SystemNoceboInternal medicinePravastatinOdds ratioStatinAtorvastatinSimvastatinPlaceboCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aimed to evaluate whether the high frequency of reported statin adverse effects (AEs) may be associated with the nocebo effect. We compared nocebo-related subjective AEs with objective AEs and investigated factors potentially associated with the nocebo effect. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System between January 2010 and December 2019 for statins, including, atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. Subjective AEs included fatigue, subjective muscular, and nervous system AEs. Objective AEs were defined as hepatic and objective muscular AEs. We compared the number of subjective and objective AEs using the Mann-Whitney U test and examined trends in the frequency of subjective versus objective reports over time using linear regression with interaction terms. We evaluated the association between AEs and gender and country using linear regression. Quantitative detection of signals was estimated using proportional reporting ratio and reporting odds ratio for simvastatin. Results: Of 2 994 487 overall AE reports, more subjective than objective AEs were reported per quarter (mean±SD: 4777±1375.45 versus 999±276.95; P <0.0001), and over time during the study period ( P <0.001). Women reported more subjective AEs than men per quarter (fatigue: 86.98 more per quarter, P =0.035; subjective muscular AE: 417.95, P <0.0001; nervous system AE: 273.60, P <0.0001), but fewer objective muscular AEs (−125.23 per quarter, P <0.0001). More subjective AEs and fewer objective AEs were reported per quarter in the United States relative to other countries. Simvastatin-associated reports showed signals for higher objective muscular AEs relative to all other statins (reporting odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.49–1.58]). Conclusions: This study found that significantly more subjective than objective AEs are reported for statins. Subjective statin AEs, potentially related to the nocebo effect are reported more often by women than by men, and in the United States than in other countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207