A Retrospective Analysis of the Role of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer Disease Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIS) are a commonly used medication. A limited number of studies have identified a weak-to-moderate association between PPI use and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, but none to date have identified an effect of PPI use on CRC survival. We therefore postulated that an association between PPI use and CRC survival might potentially exist. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 1304 CRC patients diagnosed from January 2005 to December 2011 and treated at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 117 patients (9.0%) who were taking PPIS at the time of oncology consult. Those taking a PPI were also more often taking ASA or statins (or both) and had a statistically significantly increased rate of cardiac disease. No identifiable difference in tumour characteristics was evident in the two groups, including tumour location, differentiation, lymph node status, and stage. Univariate analysis identified a statistically nonsignificant difference in survival, with those taking a PPI experiencing lesser 1-year (82.1% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.161), 2-year (70.1% vs. 76.8%, p = 0.111), and 5-year os (55.2% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.165). When controlling for patient demographics and tumour characteristics, multivariate Cox regression analysis identified a statistically significant effect of PPI in our patient population (hazard ratio: 1.343; 95% confidence interval: 1.011 to 1.785; p = 0.042). Conclusions: Our results suggest a potential adverse effect of PPI use on OS in CRC patients. These results need further evaluation in prospective analyses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".