Duration of effect of lansoprazole on gastric pH and acid secretion in normal male volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the duration of effect of lansoprazole 30 mg o.m. on intragastric pH, acid secretion, gastrin levels, the potential for rebound acidity, and the relationship between gastric acid and drug pharmacokinetic parameters. METHODS: Sixteen subjects were treated with lansoprazole 30 mg daily or placebo for 14 days, followed by a 7-day post-dosing period and a post-study evaluation on day 28. Ambulatory 24-h pH was recorded and pentagastrin-stimulated acid secretion measured. Plasma kinetics of lansoprazole were determined. RESULTS: Mean intragastric pH in the lansoprazole group increased significantly (P < 0.05) from baseline to day 14 compared to placebo. After cessation of treatment, secretory activity, as measured by intragastric pH, basal acid output and stimulated acid output, returned to baseline in 2 to 4 days without any overshoot, indicating the absence of acid rebound. Lansoprazole's terminal disposition half-life was 1.11 h. Mean pH and serum gastrin returned to baseline with half-lives of 22 and 19 h, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lansoprazole 30 mg daily significantly increases mean intragastric pH without producing acid rebound. Regeneration of acid production depends primarily on de novo synthesis of the acid pump.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".