The effect of anti-acid therapy on survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a methodological review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International treatment guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) give a conditional recommendation for anti-acid therapy. As some observational studies reported discrepant findings on the effectiveness of anti-acid therapy on mortality in IPF, we reviewed all studies to evaluate whether immortal time bias explains these discrepancies.We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases up to July 2017 for observational studies assessing the effectiveness of anti-acid therapy on mortality in IPF. Hazard ratios of mortality with anti-acid therapy were pooled across studies using random-effect models, stratified by the presence of immortal time bias.We identified 10 observational studies. Four of the five studies reporting beneficial effects of anti-acid therapy use on mortality were affected by immortal time bias (pooled hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.69), while it was unclear whether the fifth was affected. The five studies that avoided immortal time bias reported no effect of anti-acid therapy on mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.22).The apparent beneficial effects of anti-acid therapy on mortality in patients with IPF result from observational studies affected by immortal time bias. Thus, the effectiveness of anti-acid therapy in IPF remains uncertain and needs to be reassessed with more accurate observational study methods and randomised trials.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.067 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".