Proton pump inhibitor leaflets: Is there information on deprescribing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aims to analyze the existence of information about deprescription in the leaflets of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medications. The leaflets available on the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for the following medications were analyzed: omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, dexlansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole. The variables collected in each leaflet were the existence: a) about deprescribing; b) of guidance on the deprescription process; c) maximum recommended time for use; and d) risk of prolonged use. This information was analyzed in accordance with the PPI deprescription guideline, from Canada. Regarding the medication leaflets, 83.33 % from ANVISA and 100 % from the FDA did not present explicit and systematic guidance on deprescribing. Regarding the maximum time of use, 100 % of the leaflets from both agencies contained this information. Regarding the risks of prolonged use of the medication, 33.33 % of the ANVISA leaflets and 33.3 % of the FDA leaflets did not report the increased risks described in the guideline. The results highlight a large gap in information about deprescribing in PPI leaflets; this highlighting is necessary to contribute to the promotion of the rational use of medicines.
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 | 0.014 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".