<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Infection: Is Sequential Therapy Superior to Standard Triple Therapy? A Single-Centre Italian Study in Treatment-Naive and Non-Treatment-Naive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin resistance has decreased the eradication rates of Helicobacter pylori. AIMS: To determine whether a 10-day course of sequential therapy (ST) is more effective at eradicating H pylori infection than triple therapy (TT) in the first or second line, and to assess side effects and compliance with therapy. METHODS: One hundred sixty treatment-naive and 40 non-treatment-naive patients who were positive for H pylori infection by ¹³C-urea breath test or endoscopy were enrolled. Eighty of 160 patients underwent TT, while 80 of 160 underwent ST with omeprazole (20 mg) plus amoxicillin (1 g) twice⁄day for five days, followed by omeprazole (20 mg) with tinidazole (500 mg) twice⁄day and clarithromycin (500 mg) twice⁄day for five consecutive days. H pylori eradication was evaluated by ¹³C-urea breath test no sooner than four weeks after the end of treatment. RESULTS: Eradication was achieved in 59 of 80 treatment-naive patients treated with TT (74%), in 74 of 80 patients treated with ST (93%), and in 38 of 40 non-treatment-naive patients (95%). Eradication rates in treatment-naive patients with ST were statistically significantly higher than TT (92.5% versus 73.7%; P=0.0015; OR 4.39 [95% CI 1.66 to 11.58]). Mild adverse effects were reported for both regimens. CONCLUSIONS: ST appears to be a well-tolerated, promising therapy; however, randomized controlled trials with larger and more diverse sample populations are needed before it can be recommended as a first-line treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".