Prevalence and Risk Factors of <i><scp>H</scp>elicobacter pylori</i> Infection in <scp>S</scp>audi Children: A Three‐Year Prospective Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is the most common chronic infections. The risk factors for H. pylori infection in both developing and developed countries are closely related to poor living conditions in childhood. This study aimed to establish the prevalence of H. pylori infection and its associated risk factors among children in the western and central regions of Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed among symptomatic children in National Guard hospitals who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy from 2010 to 2013. The gold standard diagnosis of H. pylori infection was histologic presence of the bacteria in the gastric biopsy. The variables analyzed as possible risk factors included demographic and living characteristics, socioeconomic status, potential mode of transmission, and clinical indications of H. pylori infection. RESULTS: A total of 303 children were included in the study. The overall prevalence of H. pylori infection was 49.8%. Among the studied variables, the following were positively associated with the presence of H. pylori in multivariable analyses: age above 10 years(OR = 11.84, 95% CI = 3.90-35.94, p < .0001), an income of <5000 SR (OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.07-3.95), more than eight persons in the household (OR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.67-7.20), bed sharing (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.32-3.86), and two affected parents (OR = 11.19, 95% CI = 1.29-97.27). Abdominal pain and anorexia were significant predictors of H. pylori infection (p = .005 and .009, respectively). CONCLUSION: Helicobacter pylori infection had a high prevalence among Saudi children in the cities of Jeddah and Riyadh. It was a relatively common cause of abdominal pain and anorexia. In this cohort of children, H. pylori infection was associated with variables indicative of a crowded environment and poor living conditions, further supporting the conclusion that improving socioeconomic conditions and designing a preventive health strategy in Saudi Arabia will likely protect children against this infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".