No association between proton pump inhibitor use and risk of dementia: Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A growing body of literature suggests the association between dementia risk and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association between PPI use and dementia risk. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane till March 31, 2019. All the studies (cohort and case-control) assessing the association between PPI use and dementia risk were eligible for inclusion. Articles were selected based on the screening of title and abstract, data were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pooled risk of dementia among PPI user as compared with non-PPI user. Secondary outcomes include dementia risk based on subgroups. Statistical analysis was performed using review manager software. RESULTS: Twelve studies (eight cohort and four case-control) were found to be eligible for inclusion. Majority of the studies were of high quality. Dementia was diagnosed based on International Classification of Diseases 9/10 codes in majority of the included studies. PPI use was not associated with the dementia risk, with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-1.15), P = 0.31. Subgroup analysis based on study design (cohort: P = 0.14; case-control: P = 0.14), sex (RR 1.25 [95% CI: 0.97-1.60], P = 0.08), histamine 2 receptor antagonist blockers (P = 0.93), and Alzheimer's disease (RR 1.00 [95% CI: 0.91-1.09], P = 0.93) revealed no significant association between PPI use and dementia risk. CONCLUSION: We found no significant association between PPI use and the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
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 | 0.023 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".