The Incidence of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Acquisition in Children of a Canadian First Nations Community and the Potential for Parent‐to‐Child Transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We have previously reported that Wasagamack, a Canadian First Nations community has a seroprevalence rate of Helicobacter pylori of 95% and a prevalence rate among children aged 0-12 years as measured by stool antigen testing of 56%. We aimed to determine the rate of infection acquisition and possible modes of transmission of childhood Helicobacter pylori infection in this Canadian First Nations community. METHODS: Children who were previously negative for H. pylori by stool antigen testing in August 1999 were eligible for enrollment in August 2000; 50 (77%) eligible children underwent stool collection. H. pylori stool antigen status was tested using the Premier Platinum HpSA test. Drinking water samples, maternal saliva, breast milk, local berries and flies were tested by three complementary H. pylori-specific PCR assays. Soothers or bottle nipples, collected from 16 children whose H. pylori stool antigen status was determined, were bathed in sterile water and this water was tested by PCR. RESULTS: Stool was positive for H. pylori in 16% (8/ 50) of children retested. Five had no other siblings infected and three had infected siblings. The mothers of all children infected were positive for H. pylori. The median age of newly infected children was 6 years (range 1-13 years). By PCR, 78% (18/23) mothers' saliva samples, 69% (11/16) soother water samples and 9% (1/11) water samples from infected homes tested positive. All of 24 sequenced PCR-produced DNA fragments from samples showed 99% homology with that from ATCC type strain H. pylori. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of childhood H. pylori acquisition was 16% over 1 year, and was not dependent on number of siblings infected. The finding of homologous H. pylori DNA in saliva and in soother water suggests the possibility of human to human transmission, particularly via an oral-oral route. Thus, there is the potential for further investigations in this population and other endemic communities that are directed at prevention of infection transmission via this modality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".