Curing <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection in Patients with Duodenal Ulcer Does Not Provoke Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) increases after successful eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. We present data on development of GERD from a controlled study of H. pylori eradication in 165 duodenal ulcer patients. METHODS: Patients (mean age, 55 years; 102 men; current smokers; n = 74) were randomly assigned 2: 1 to receive omeprazole, 40 mg twice daily, in combination with either amoxicillin, 750 mg twice daily, or placebo. Endoscopy and dyspeptic symptoms, including heartburn, were assessed at inclusion and at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. In addition, symptoms were assessed at 18 months. Patients with erosive esophagitis or reflux symptoms requiring treatment at inclusion were not included in the study. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 145 (35%) evaluable patients developed heartburn, and 13 of 145 (9%) developed esophagitis during follow-up. The life-table analysis of the cumulated risk of developing heartburn showed that patients whose H. pylori infection was eradicated had a significantly lower risk for developing heartburn than those with persistent H. pylori infection. The groups did not show any difference in cumulative risk of developing esophagitis. CONCLUSION: Our data show that successful eradication of H. pylori infection does not increase the incidence of GERD in duodenal ulcer patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".