Gastric acid suppressants and cognitive decline in people with or without cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Studies suggest associations between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and dementia risk; however, many neither considered histamine‐2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) nor baseline cognitive status. Methods Participants (National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Database; 2005–2021) using a PPI or H2RA were compared. Covariate‐adjusted Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for progression from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and from MCI to dementia over 5 years. In a propensity‐score–matched subsample of mild–moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), mixed‐effects negative binomial regression was used to estimate decline in delayed recall memory. Results Compared to PPI, H2RA use was associated with earlier progression from MCI to dementia (HR = 1.40 [1.09–1.81]; n = 1701), and with faster memory decline in AD over time (rate ratio = 0.76 [0.64–0.92]; n = 628), but not with progression from normal cognition to MCI (HR = 0.94 [0.71–1.24]; n = 2784). Discussion Compared to PPIs, H2RAs were associated with cognitive decline, specifically among people with pre‐existing cognitive impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".