A Meta-Analysis of the Success Rate of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Therapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Helicobacter pylori treatment success rates have varied. A systematic review of the success rate of anti- H pylori therapy in Canada was performed. METHODS: All clinical trials containing Canadian data on the success rate of H pylori treatment were identified using MEDLINE searches, through review of references of retrieved studies and by contacting key investigators. Both randomized and open-label trials were included. Treatment effect size was calculated using a variation of Cochran's Q method. RESULTS: Seventeen papers met the inclusion criteria. Both triple therapies consisting of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and either amoxicillin or metronidazole performed well, achieving a success rate of 84% and 82%, respectively. The cure rate of PPI-amoxicillin + metronidazole was 76%. Quadruple therapy consisting of a PPI, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline, given for seven to 10 days, achieved a success rate of 87%. CONCLUSION: Both PPI-based triple therapy and quadruple therapy perform well in Canada for the treatment of H pylori infection.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".