The relationship between proton pump inhibitor use and serum magnesium concentration among hemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that serum magnesium (Mg) concentration is inversely related to vascular calcification and hyperparathyroidism among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In recent years, there have been several case reports of hypomagnesemia due to use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), with the hypomagnesemia attributed to inappropriate gastrointestinal (GI) Mg loss. We hypothesized that the tendency to GI Mg loss is more common than is currently reported. Since patients with ESRD have little to no renal Mg loss to affect serum Mg concentration, dialysis patients are an interesting population in whom to study the relationship between PPI use and serum Mg levels. METHODS: Using a single-center cross-sectional design, we studied 155 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients. Serum Mg concentration for each patient was determined based on the mean of 3 consecutive serum Mg levels drawn at 6 week intervals. PPI use at the time of the blood tests was documented. The relationship between PPI use and Mg concentration was determined in unadjusted analyses, as well as after adjustment for age, gender, race, cause of ESRD, diabetes, time on HD and dialysate Mg concentration. RESULTS: 55 % of patients were on PPIs at the time of the study. The majority of patients (62 %) used a dialysate Mg (in mmol/L) of 0.5, and the remainder (38 %) used a dialysate Mg of 0.375. Serum Mg levels were significantly lower among PPI users vs. non-users (0.93 vs. 1.02 mmol/L, p < 0.001). This finding persisted after stratifying for dialysate Mg concentration, and after multivariable adjustment (p < 0.001). In addition, more PPI users vs. non-users had a Mg level < 1 mmol/L (79 % vs. 43 %) and a Mg level < 0.8 mmol/L (16 % vs. 4 %). There was a non-significant trend toward increased time on PPI being associated with lower serum Mg levels (p = 0.067). CONCLUSION: Among HD patients, PPI users have lower serum Mg levels as compared with non-users. Further research is required to determine whether the magnitude of change in Mg levels among PPI users is associated with adverse outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".