Reduce unnecessary use of proton pump inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
### What you need to know Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used classes of drugs globally, often taken for longer than needed and at high financial cost to society. Among adults living in the community, the point prevalence of PPI use is 7-8% in the UK and Denmark,12 while rates of use of 40-50% have been reported in older people in Canada and in those living in residential care in Australia.3456 In England, more than 50 million prescriptions for PPIs were issued in 2015.7 While PPIs are effective for upper gastrointestinal disorders and may be continued long term (beyond 8 weeks)8 for specific conditions (box 1),11121314 people often continue taking them for years when guidelines recommend 4-8 weeks of treatment or, in the case of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients, cessation when the patient is no longer critically ill or the risk factor triggering prophylaxis is no longer present (box 2).9131516 Box 1 ### Indications for long term use (>8 weeks) of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)910RETURN TO TEXT
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 | 0.001 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.022 |
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".