COX‐2 inhibitors show no preventive effect in the development of skin cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some clinical trials found that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor use lowered the risk of skin cancer in high-risk groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To determine whether COX-2 inhibitor use is associated with lower risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and melanoma, we analyzed COX-2 inhibitor use and risk of skin cancer based on three prospective cohort studies, the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, including 153,882 participants. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of COX-2 inhibitor use with risk of BCC, cSCC, and melanoma were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. We pooled the results using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: 16,142 BCC, 1,973 cSCC, and 631 melanoma cases were documented. Ever vs. never use of COX-2 inhibitor was associated with a modestly increased risk of BCC (multivariable HR 1.09, 95 % CI 1.05-1.14). The hazard ratio was similar for cSCC (multivariable HR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.00-1.27) and melanoma (multivariable HR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.89-1.38), but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ever use of COX-2 inhibitor was not associated with a decreased skin cancer risk but was instead associated with a modest, increased risk of BCC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".