Do We Eradicate<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>in Hospitalized Patients with Peptic Ulcer Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection is the most common chronic infection in humans. It is a major contributor to the cause of duodenal and gastric ulcers worldwide. Its eradication has been shown to reduce rates of H pylori-related ulcers as well as other complications such as gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of appropriate treatment in patients following a diagnosis of H pylori infection on biopsy during esophagoduodenoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding over a four-year period at a tertiary centre in Vancouver, British Columbia. Also evaluated was the rate of eradication confirmation using the urea breath test. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1501 inpatients who underwent esophagoduodenoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (January 2006 to December 2010) was undertaken. Patients who were biopsy stain positive for H pylori were selected for drug review either via a provincial database (PharmaNet) or via records from patients' family practitioners. Data were also obtained via two provincial laboratories that perform the urea breath test to determine the rates of confirmation of eradication. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients had biopsy-proven H pylori. The mean (± SD) age was 56.13±17.9 years and 65 were male. Data were not available for 22 patients; the treatment rate was 52.6% (40 of 76). Of those treated, 12 patients underwent a post-treatment urea breath test for eradication confirmation. CONCLUSION: There was substantial discrepancy between the number of diagnosed H pylori infections and the rate of treatment as well as confirmation of eradication. Numerous approaches could be taken to improve treatment and eradication confirmation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".