Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of severe cognitive impairment: The role of posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), a common treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), were recently associated with increased risk of dementia. However, severe or chronic stress including, for example, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not accounted for. This study examined whether PPI use was associated with severe cognitive impairment (SCI) and whether PTSD explained this association in a cohort of World Trade Center (WTC) responders. METHOD: A prospective cohort study of 3779 WTC responders attending a university-based monitoring and treatment program. Prescriptions for PPIs and SCI determined using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were the focus of the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 1451 (38.4%) responders were dispensed PPIs, and 83 (2.2%) had SCI. Bivariable analyses revealed significant associations between being-dispensed PPIs in relation to SCI. After adjusting for PTSD, major depressive disorder, WTC exposures, age, and sex, being-dispensed PPIs were significantly associated with odds of SCI (adjusted odds ratio = 1.67 95% confidence interval = 1.054-2.643). CONCLUSIONS: Being-dispensed PPIs were associated with SCI in this analysis of WTC responders. Results suggest that clinicians treating GERD seek to both understand patients' mental health history and monitor cognitive functioning when designing treatment routines. Overall, results confirmed that this is an important area of investigation with potential direct clinical implications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".