Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to critically assess studies regarding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and fractures. A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify relevant articles. Three case-control studies assessed fractures and PPI use. A study of all subjects with fracture in Denmark in 2000 revealed adjusted OR=1.18 (1.12-1.43) for PPI use within the last year (hip fracture OR=1.45,1.28-1.65); no dose-response relationship was identified. A study of hip fractures in UK patients > or =50 years found adjusted OR=1.44 (1.30-1.59) for >1 year of PPIs; duration and average daily dose were significantly associated with fracture risk: adjusted OR for >1.75 times average daily dose for >1 year was 2.65 (1.80-3.90). A study of vertebral, wrist, and hip fractures in Manitoba patients > or =50 years found adjusted OR=0.99 (0.90-1.11) for > or =1 year of continuous PPI; association became significant > or =7 years (OR=1.92, 1.16-3.18). Consistency of some positive results in all studies, the dose and/or duration response in two studies, the possibility that acid inhibition may decrease calcium absorption, and association with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists in some studies support a causal association. The low magnitude of the association (ORs<2), lack of dose-response in one study, lack of association with histamine(2)-receptor antagonists in one study, lack of experimental evidence documenting a mechanism, and inability to assess potential confounding factors limit statements regarding causality. As with all medications, PPIs should be used for appropriate indications and not in higher doses or longer durations than necessary to achieve the desired 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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".