Proton-pump inhibitor therapy and vitamin B<sub>12</sub> status in an inpatient hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk for impaired vitamin B12 status increases with age, as does the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Long-term use of PPIs is associated with several nutritional deficiencies including B12. Currently, there are no recommendations for B12 screening among patients taking PPIs. Data were abstracted on B12 concentrations, B12-containing supplement use, medications, and select hematological values from a retrospective chart review of 658 adults, 391 with serum B12 concentrations, admitted to 6 different medical units at 2 regional hospitals in Southwestern Ontario between 2010 and 2012. We found no difference between PPI users and nonusers and serum B12 concentrations (404 ± 224 vs 369 ± 213 pmol/L; P = 0.0690). This may be due to use of B12 containing multivitamins in 41% of PPI users. Regression modelling found that aging increases the odds of having an impaired B12 status (<220 pmol/L) by 1.4 times and those using B12 supplements are almost 4 times more likely to have an impaired status. Mean corpuscular volume was not related to B12 status. In this population, older PPI users are more likely to be using multivitamins, which may delay nutritional deficiencies. However, the lower B12 concentrations of PPI users taking only B12 supplements is a concern and requires further research. Finally, physicians need to be aware that mean corpuscular volume is no longer recommended as an effective biomarker for B12 screening and updated screening protocols need to be used to reduce the possibility of adverse neurological effects from impaired B12 status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".