MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410355630 · doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjaf072

Proton pump inhibitor exposure, trabecular bone score, and BMD: a registry-based cohort study

2025· article· en· W4410355630 on OpenAlexaff
Fatima Zarzour, John T. Schousboe, Neil Binkley, Didier Hans, William D. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone mineralMedicineCohortProton-pump inhibitorCohort studyBone densityInternal medicineDentistryOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are widely prescribed medications. Proton pump inhibitors exposure may be associated with lower trabecular bone score (TBS), but has not shown a consistent effect on BMD. We hypothesized that abdominal obesity, which is associated with both gastroesophageal disease and PPI use, could confound the relationship between PPI use and TBS. We assessed the effect of PPI use on TBS (primary measurement) and BMD (secondary measurements) before and after adjustment for sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD), a DXA-derived measure of abdominal soft-tissue thickness. The study population comprised 60 930 individuals (90.3% women, mean age 65.7 yr) that included 11 340 (18.6%) with PPI use in the preceding 12 mo. PPI exposure was categorized from medication persistence ratio (MPR) as non-use (referent), minimal (MPR 0.01-0.25), mild (MPR 0.26-0.5), moderate (MPR 0.51-0.75), and high use (MPR 0.76-1). When logistic regression models were minimally adjusted for age, sex, and scanner, increasing PPI use versus non-use was associated with progressively increasing odds ratios (ORs) for TBS in the lowest tertile (minimal 1.11 [95% CI 1.02-1.22], mild 1.18 [1.04-1.34], moderate 1.34 [1.17-1.53], high 1.41 [1.31-1.52]) but inversely with osteoporotic BMD (minimal 0.97 [0.89-1.06], mild 0.85 [0.75-0.97], moderate 0.82 [0.72-0.94]), and high 0.76 [0.70-0.82]). Sagittal abdominal diameter was greater in PPI users than non-users. After further adjustment for SAD, PPI use was not associated with lower TBS or BMD. Similar patterns were seen in men and women, and for longer durations of PPI use. Among 4742 with a second DXA (mean interval 3.4 yr), PPI use was not associated with more rapid TBS or BMD loss compared to non-users. In conclusion, PPI use is associated with greater SAD, an indicator of abdominal obesity. SAD and other clinical variables have a confounding effect on TBS and BMD measurements. When fully adjusted, PPI exposure did not significantly decrease TBS or BMD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207