MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981119013 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4103

P4‐431: PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS USE AND RISK OF DEMENTIA: A META‐ANALYSIS USING REAL WORLD EVIDENCE

2019· article· en· W2981119013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Salman Hussain, Saima Zameer, Harveen Baxi, Dasari Anil, Abul Kalam Najmi

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineMeta-analysisCohort studyRelative riskEpidemiologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is one of the major causes of disability and dependency in the elderly. A growing body of literature suggests both the protective as well as the detrimental effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) use on dementia risk. However there are published epidemiological studies which found no association between PPI use and dementia risk. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate the association between PPI use and dementia risk. An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central from inception to January 2019. All the studies assessing the association between PPI use and dementia risk was eligible for inclusion except cross-sectional studies, letter to the editor, review and others. Articles were selected based on the screening of title and abstract, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcome of this study was pooled dementia risk among PPI user as compared to non-PPI user. Secondary outcomes include dementia risk based on subgroup like study design, sex, and others. Statistical analysis was performed using Review manager software. Nine studies (six cohort and three case-control) with a total of 6,36,030 participants of which 2,45,281 were PPI user. The mean age of the PPI user was 76.91 ± 6.91 years (60.53% female). Majority of the studies were of high quality. Dementia was diagnosed based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 code 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%CI: 0.94 – 1.17), p = 0.42 (Fig.1). Subgroup analysis based on study design [Cohort: RR 1.12 (95%CI: 0.87 – 1.45), p = 0.36; Case control: RR 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87 – 1.03), p = 0.20], sex [RR 1.25 (95% CI: 0.97 – 1.60), p = 0.08)], H2RAs (p = 0.99) and dementia subtypes [Alzheimer's disease: RR 0.96 (95% CI: 0.84 – 1.09), p = 0.53)] revealed no significant association between PPI use and dementia risk.

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)0.018
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.065
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→