A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Sequential with Triple Therapy for<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>in an Aboriginal Community in the Canadian North
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection occurs more frequently in Arctic Aboriginal settings than elsewhere in North America and Europe. Research aimed at reducing health risks from H pylori infection has been conducted in the Aboriginal community of Aklavik, Northwest Territories. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the Canadian standard therapy with an alternative therapy for eliminating H pylori infection in Aklavik. METHODS: Treatment-naive H pylori-positive individuals were randomly assigned to a 10-day regimen (oral twice-daily doses) with rabeprazole (20 mg): standard triple therapy (proton pump inhibitor, added clarithromycin [500 mg] and amoxicillin [1 g] [PPI-CA]); sequential therapy (ST) added amoxicillin (1 g) on days 1 to 5, and metronidazole (500 mg) and clarithromycin (500 mg) on days 6 to 10. Participants with clarithromycin-resistant H pylori were randomly assigned to ST or quadruple therapy. Treatment effectiveness was estimated as per cent (95% CI) with a negative urea breath test at least 10 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: Of 104 (53 PPI-CA, 51 ST) randomized participants, 89 (49 PPI-CA, 40 ST) had post-treatment results. Per-protocol treatment effectiveness was 59% (95% CI 45% to 73%) for PPI-CA and 73% (95% CI 58% to 87%) for ST. Based on intention to treat, effectiveness was 55% (95% CI 41% to 69%) for PPI-CA and 57% (95% CI 43% to 71%) for ST. Of 77 participants (43 PPI-CA, 34 ST) with 100% adherence, effectiveness was 63% (95% CI 43% to 82%) for PPI-CA and 81% (95% CI 63% to 99%) for ST. CONCLUSIONS: While additional evidence is needed to confirm that ST is more effective for Arctic Aboriginal communities than the Canadian standard H pylori treatment, these results show standard PPI-CA treatment to be inadequate for communities such as Aklavik.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".