Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1]¿p#1 Aim To systematically evaluate the safety of PPI therapy in children aged 0 to 12 years, with a focus on treatment-emergent adverse events across different study designs and age groups. Method The systematic Review was carried out according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar and Grey literature sources, Eligible studies included Retrospective cohort study, Randomized Controlled Trials and Phase 1/ Early-Phase Studies. Data extraction focused on reported adverse events, patient age, drug type, and treatment duration. The methodological quality was assessed using study-design-specific tools. Randomized controlled trials were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool, observational cohort studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and non-randomized interventional studies with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Conclusion Short-term PPI use in children appears generally safe, with predominantly mild gastrointestinal and respiratory adverse events. Serious complications are uncommon but may be underestimated due to limited follow-up and inconsistent reporting. Use of PPIs in infants with physiological reflux is discouraged, as gastric contents are typically non-acidic due to milk buffering.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".