Intake of Proton-Pump Inhibitors and Gastric Cancer within the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A potential association between proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) and gastric cancer remains undefined. Thus, we aimed to evaluate such association within the Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project. METHODS: Data from five case-control studies of the StoP Project were included (1,889 cases and 6,517 controls). We assessed the impact of different exposure definitions, specifically any reported use of PPIs and exposure definitions based on the duration of PPI intake. Additionally, we modeled the dose-response relationship between the cumulative duration of PPI intake and gastric cancer. RESULTS: Significant associations between PPI intake and gastric cancer, both overall and in the stratified analyses, were limited to exposure definitions based on short durations of intake. The overall odds ratio (OR) for any reported PPI intake was 1.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-4.14]. In the dose-response analysis, the ORs of gastric cancer were found to be higher for short durations of PPI intake (6 months: OR 3.26; 95% CI: 2.40-4.42; one year: OR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.69-2.70; 2 years: OR 1.50; 95% CI: 1.22-1.85; 3 years: OR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03-1.56), with the association becoming not significant for durations longer than 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the observed association between PPIs and gastric cancer might be mainly due to reverse causality. IMPACT: The results of this study suggest that PPIs are a safe therapeutic choice regarding their effect on the occurrence of gastric cancer. See related commentary by Richman and Leiman, p. 1127.
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 | 0.033 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".