Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Helicobacter pylori Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies examining the relationship between hyperemesis gravidarum and Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection. DATA SOURCES: A 1966 to January 2007 search using MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science included MeSH terms: "Helicobacter pylori," "Helicobacter infections," "hyperemesis gravidarum," and the text words "nausea," "vomit," "pregnancy," and "Helicobacter." References of selected papers were examined for additional relevant studies. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We evaluated studies investigating a relationship between hyperemesis gravidarum and H pylori infection. Studies were included in which the diagnosis of hyperemesis gravidarum was made at or before entry into the study, and H pylori diagnosis was made by serum antibody sample, gastric biopsy, saliva test, or stool sample. The search produced 169 titles; 22 were reviewed in further detail. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Fourteen case-control studies met established criteria, involving 1,732 participants and controls tested for H pylori infection. Studies were evaluated according to patient demographics and study methodology (case definition, exclusion criteria, H pylori testing). An estimate of the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals was calculated by using a random effects model for dichotomous variables with review article software. Ten studies showed a significant association between hyperemesis gravidarum and H pylori infection. Odds ratios varied from 0.55 to 109.33; three results were less than 1.0. Tests for heterogeneity applied to several subgroups were considerable with values above 75% for all groups. CONCLUSION: An association between hyperemesis gravidarum and H pylori infection is suggested by this systematic review. However, the considerable heterogeneity among studies highlights study limitations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".