Use of Vitamin K Antagonists and Brain Volumetry in Older Adults: Preliminary Results From the <scp>GAIT</scp> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many elderly adults take PPIs.Even though PPIs are generally considered safe, they have some adverse effects, so their prescription must always be based on major available scientific evidence.This study confirms that PPIs are frequently prescribed without an appropriate indication, and a trend of overprescription and not underprescription was observed.It was attempted to determine the characteristics of individuals at higher risk of inappropriate PPI prescription.Age does not affect PPI appropriateness; a similar percentage of PPI inappropriateness was observed in different age groups.Similar results were found previously.8 The CIRS comorbidity index was not associated with inappropriate PPI prescription, in contrast to the previous study, 8 which found a statistically significant association between these two factors.The current study found an increasing trend in wrong PPI prescription with increasing number of drugs taken daily.The association was not statistically significant, but a larger study might validate this.8 In conclusion, the chronic use of PPIs seems to have a high margin of safety, but doubts have been raised about possible risks associated with their long-term use.Greater attention must be paid to protect people from unnecessary adverse drug effects and to cut healthcare costs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".