“Chronic Exposure to Proton Pump Inhibitor use and Diabetes Mellitus Incidence. A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis “
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Proton pump inhibitors are very commonly prescribed drugs for gastrointestinal disorders. It is estimated that worldwide a total of 537 million adult populations are affected by diabetes mellitus. The present systematic review was planned to explore an association between PPIs use and the risk of DM occurrence which is unclear yet. We have performed a comprehensive literature search in popular electronic databases such as Pub Med, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov using a comprehensive search strategy from inception to December 2022. Quality analysis was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale system. All Statistical analyses were performed using the “Review Manager 5.4” version. The P value < .05 was set as statistically highly significant. This systematic review identified 12 studies (8: observational; 1: RCT & 3: case-control; n = 11, 64816) with a total of 1, 25,504 cases of diabetes incidence, and the median age ranged from > 18-74.9 years. The pooled RR findings have shown that exposure to PPIs is significantly associated with an increased risk of DM occurrence (RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.31–4.54) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%, P < 0.00001). A significant relationship between the chronic use of PPIs and the development of diabetes mellitus was found. Hypergastrenemia, gut dysbiosis, hypomagnesaemia, decrease pancreatic secretions, PXR activation, decrease in the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and low potency are some of the mechanisms proposed to explain an association of diabetes incidence with chronic PPI use. Furthermore, RCTs on PPIs associated risk of diabetes incidence are suggested
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".