Bismuth-Based Quadruple Therapy with Bismuth Subcitrate, Metronidazole, Tetracycline and Omeprazole in the Eradication of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous study showed that 14 days of qid bismuth-based triple therapy with tetracycline 500 mg, metronidazole 250 mg and colloidal bismuth subcitrate 120 mg resulted in excellent Helicobacter pylori eradication rates (89.5%). The present study looked at a shorter treatment period by adding omeprazole and by reducing the dose of tetracycline. METHODS: One hundred sixty-one patients with H pylori confirmed by histology and (13)carbon urea breath test were included in the study. They were treated for seven days with bismuth subcitrate 120 mg plus metronidazole 250 mg plus tetracycline 250 mg qid plus omeprazole 20 mg bid (OBMT). Patients were 18 to 75 years of age and had dyspepsia with or without a history of peptic ulcer. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome, active ulcer or previous attempt at eradication, or those who had used antibiotics or antiulcer drugs in the previous 30 days were excluded. Eradication was determined by two (13)carbon urea breath tests done one and three months, respectively, after treatment. Strains with minimal inhibitory concentrations of 8 microg/mL or higher were considered to be resistant to metronidazole. RESULTS: The overall per protocol eradication rate was 84%-89.5% in metronidazole-sensitive and 70.8% in metronidazole-resistant strains. Modified intent-to-treat analysis resulted in a 80% eradication rate--82.5% in metronidazole-sensitive and 66.7% in metronidazole-resistant strains. Only one patient discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The OBMT regimen used in this study is safe and effective against metronidazole-sensitive H pylori strains.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".