One‐week triple therapy with esomeprazole, clarithromycin and metronidazole provides effective eradication of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the eradication rates of treatment with esomeprazole, metronidazole and clarithromycin (EMC) vs. omeprazole, metronidazole and clarithromycin (OMC), given for 7 days. OMC treatment was followed by 3 weeks of treatment with 20 mg omeprazole alone; the EMC group received placebo. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted in 36 Canadian centres. Patients had a minimum 3-month history of dyspepsia, with or without a previous history of peptic ulcer disease, and were Helicobacter pylori positive by urea breath test. The eradication of H. pylori was determined by two negative breath tests performed at least 4 and 8 weeks following the completion of treatment. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat and per protocol populations consisted of 379 and 339 patients, respectively. The success rates of EMC/placebo were 76% (144/190) by intention-to-treat and 80% (138/172) by per protocol analysis; for OMC/omeprazole, the rates were 72% (137/189) and 75% (125/167), respectively. The difference between the two treatment groups was not significant. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A 7-day regimen of esomeprazole, metronidazole and clarithromycin is effective and well tolerated for the eradication of H. pylori 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".