Review: eradication therapy supplemented by probiotics increased eradication rates and reduced side effects in H pylori infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tong JL, Ran ZH, Shen J, et al. Meta-analysis: the effect of supplementation with probiotics on eradication rates and adverse events during Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25:155–68. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In patients with Helicobacter pylori infection, do probiotics improve eradication rates and reduce side effects of anti- H pylori treatment? Clinical impact ratings Gasterenterology ★★★★★★☆ Infectious disease ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Science Citation Index, and Chinese Biomedical Database (all to October 2006); Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2006); reference lists of retrieved articles; abstracts of major gastroenterological meetings; and authors in the field. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or Chinese that compared an eradication regimen consisting of proton pump inhibitors and 2 antibiotics plus probiotics with the same eradication regimen plus placebo or no additional treatment in patients of any age who had never been treated … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAlimentary%2Bpharmacology%2B%2526%2Btherapeutics%26rft.stitle%253DAliment%2BPharmacol%2BTher%26rft.aulast%253DTong%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D25%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D155%26rft.epage%253D168%26rft.atitle%253DMeta-analysis%253A%2Bthe%2Beffect%2Bof%2Bsupplementation%2Bwith%2Bprobiotics%2Bon%2Beradication%2Brates%2Band%2Badverse%2Bevents%2Bduring%2BHelicobacter%2Bpylori%2Beradication%2Btherapy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17229240%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17229240&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F3%2F84.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000243230300005&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".