MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773990083 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.415

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Dementia: Deciphering the Data

2017· letter· en· W2773990083 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Moayyedi, Maxine A Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaConfoundingIntensive care medicineProton-pump inhibitorPneumoniaPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective and suppressing acid, and therefore have efficacy against gastric acid-related disorders. The long-term safety of PPIs is less clear and there have been a number of studies raising concerns regarding risk of pneumonia, fracture, Clostridium difficile, chronic renal failure, and dementia. This latter concern is addressed by a study in this issue of AJG using health care registry data and found there was no association between PPI use and Alzheimer's dementia. Furthermore, there was no increased risk of dementia with long-term use of PPIs or higher doses of PPIs. Discrepancies between studies probably relate to multiple testing and residual confounding and currently there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the association between PPIs and dementia is causal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0210.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207