Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of osteoporosis-related fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of proton pump inhibitors has been associated with an increased risk of hip fracture. We sought to further explore the relation between duration of exposure to proton pump inhibitors and osteoporosis-related fractures. METHODS: We used administrative claims data to identify patients with a fracture of the hip, vertebra or wrist between April 1996 and March 2004. Cases were each matched with 3 controls based on age, sex and comorbidities. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) for the risk of hip fracture and all osteoporosis-related fractures for durations of proton pump inhibitor exposure ranging from 1 or more years to more than 7 years. RESULTS: We matched 15 792 cases of osteoporosis-related fractures with 47 289 controls. We did not detect a significant association between the overall risk of an osteoportic fracture and the use of proton pump inhibitors for durations of 6 years or less. However, exposure of 7 or more years was associated with increased risk of an osteoporosis-related fracture (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-3.18, p = 0.011). We also found an increased risk of hip fracture after 5 or more years of exposure (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.02-2.58, p = 0.04), with even higher risk after 7 or more years exposure (adjusted OR 4.55, 95% CI 1.68-12.29, p = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: Use of proton pump inhibitors for 7 or more years is associated with a significantly increased risk of an osteoporosis-related fracture. There is an increased risk of hip fracture after 5 or more years exposure. Further study is required to determine the clinical importance of this finding and to determine the value of osteoprotective medications for patients with long-term use of proton pump inhibitors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".