Vitamin B12 deficiency and use of proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) may impact the absorption of vitamin B12. We performed a systematic review to ascertain if PPI use increases risk of vitamin B12 deficiency. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus) were searched on first of September 2022. We selected studies that compared the frequency of vitamin B12 deficiency in PPI users and non-users. Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated for the occurrence of vitamin B12 deficiency in PPI users compared to non-users. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Twenty-five studies were included. The pooled OR of vitamin B12 deficiency among PPI users (2852 participants) was higher than non-users (28070 participants) (OR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.16–1.73; I2 = 54%). Overall risk of PPI use among vitamin B12 deficient individuals was higher than those without deficiency (OR 1.49, 1.20–1.85; I2 = 68%). Most studies found no difference between serum vitamin B12 levels among PPI users compared to non-users. Although the pooled OR of vitamin B12 deficiency was slightly increased in PPI users, but there was significant heterogeneity, and the pooled OR was too low to imply an association clearly. Better-designed prospective studies in long-term users may clarify the issue. This study was not registered on PROSPERO
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".