Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia or the use of NSAIDs, are very common, and their prevalence is expecting to rise as they are seen predominantly amongst the elderly. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been shown to have the best efficacy-safety ratio and have been used widely. OBJECTIVE: This paper was intended to provide an overall presentation of one of these PPIs, pantoprazole. METHOD: This study was first intended to give an overview of pantoprazole, so a Medline search was conducted using pantoprazole as unique search term, without publication date restriction. We found 826 references for pantoprazole and selected some of the most relevant publications to conduct this review. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Five different PPIs are commercially available: omeprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole and esomeprazole. Pantoprazole differs from other PPIs by a selective binding to the ion transport pathway, a good stability at neutral pH values, and a relatively robust plasma concentration-time curve. These pharmacokinetic differences may not be fully converted into pharmacodynamic differences of pantoprazole versus other PPIs. Pantoprazole has been assessed in most of the clinical situations where acid suppression is required, and showed great efficacy and an excellent safety profile. Some safety concerns were raised with long-term use of PPIs, but they are well balanced by the benefit of PPIs for patients with conditions such as GORD or peptic ulcer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".