No association between proton pump inhibitors use and risk of dementia: evidence from a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A growing body of literature suggests the association between dementia risk and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) use. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association between PPI use and dementia risk. Methods: An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane till 31st March 2019. All the studies (cohort, case-control) assessing the association between PPI use and dementia risk was eligible for inclusion. Articles were selected based on the screening of title and abstract, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was pooled risk of dementia among PPI user as compared to non-PPI user. Secondary outcomes include dementia risk based on subgroups. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software. Results: Twelve studies (eight cohort and four case-control) were found to be eligible for inclusion. Majority of the studies were of high quality. Dementia was diagnosed based on ICD-9/10 codes in majority of the included studies. PPI use was not associated with the dementia risk, with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.96 - 1.15), p = 0.31. Subgroup analysis based on study design [Cohort: p = 0.14; Case control: p = 0.14], sex [RR 1.25 (95% CI: 0.97 - 1.60), p = 0.08)], H2RA blockers (p = 0.93) and for Alzheimer's disease (AD) [RR 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91 - 1.09), p = 0.93)] revealed no significant association between PPI use and dementia risk. Conclusion: We found no significant association between PPI use and the risk of dementia or AD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 teacher head, 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".