A meta-analysis of the effects of proton pump inhibitors on the risk of gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed drugs in clinical practice, mainly for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). With the application of PPIs, doctors have found a variety of adverse reactions related to it, with gastric cancer being the most serious. Our aim is to investigate whether the use of PPIs increases the probability of gastric cancer. METHODS: By searching PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of science, references related to PPIs and gastric cancer were selected, and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included references and analyze their bias. Then stataSE-64 was used for statistical analysis. The above processes were independently searched and evaluated by 2 researchers. RESULTS: The use of PPIs significantly increased the incidence of gastric cancer (RR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.48-2.07, P = .000). CONCLUSION: Long-term use of PPIs may increase the incidence of gastric cancer.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".