Impact of<i> Helicobacter pylori </i>eradication on heartburn in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcer disease — results from a randomized trial programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection has been proposed as a protective factor against the development of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To study heartburn and endoscopic findings before and after H. pylori eradication therapy in patients with peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: In a multicentre trial programme, patients (n = 1497) were randomized to the omeprazole triple therapy group or to the control group, and were followed for 1-6 months after treatment. Patients in whom the infection was eradicated were compared with those in whom infection persisted. The severity of heartburn was measured at baseline and at each return visit. Endoscopy was performed 6 months after therapy in two of the five studies. RESULTS: In patients with duodenal ulcer, there was a significantly lower prevalence of heartburn after successful eradication of H. pylori relative to that after failed eradication (estimated odds ratio, 0.48). The reduction in the prevalence of heartburn in patients with gastric ulcer was independent of the post-treatment H. pylori status. In studies in which ulcer relapse was included in the model, this factor emerged as a significant factor for heartburn. The observed incidence of oesophagitis at the last visit was not influenced by H. pylori status. CONCLUSIONS: Eradication of H. pylori in patients with peptic ulcer disease was associated with a reduced prevalence of heartburn. Prevention of ulcer relapse could be the true cause of this reduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".