<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Eradication with Either Seven-Day or 10-Day Triple Therapies, and with a 10-Day Sequential Regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori eradication rates achieved by standard seven-day triple therapies are decreasing in several countries, while a novel 10-day sequential regimen has achieved a very high success rate. A longer 10-day triple therapy, similar to the sequential regimen, was tested to see whether it could achieve a better infection cure rate. METHODS: Patients with nonulcer dyspepsia and H pylori infection were randomly assigned to one of the following three therapies: esomeprazole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxycillin 1 g for seven days or 10 days, or a 10-day sequential regimen including esomeprazole 20 mg plus amoxycillin 1 g for five days and esomeprazole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and tinidazole 500 mg for the remaining five days. All drugs were given twice daily. H pylori eradication was checked four to six weeks after treatment by using a 13C-urea breath test. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients were enrolled. H pylori eradication was achieved in 75.7% and 77.9%, in 81.7% and 84.1%, and in 94.4% and 97.1% of patients following seven-day or 10-day triple therapy and the 10-day sequential regimen, at intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses, respectively. The eradication rate following the sequential regimen was higher than either seven-day (P=0.002) or 10-day triple therapy (P=0.02), while no significant difference emerged between the latter two regimens (P=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The 10-day sequential regimen was significantly more effective than both triple regimens, while 10-day triple therapy failed to significantly increase the H pylori eradication rate achieved by the standard seven-day regimen.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".