Culture of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>from stool samples in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated two protocols for isolation of Helicobacter pylori in stool from biopsied and nonbiopsied children. Twenty-three child patients whose presumptive positivity or negativity was diagnosed by endoscopy and a rapid urease test at site were used to compare biopsy-based tests with stool-based tests (H. pylori stool antigen test and stool culture). Their gastric activity and bacterial density were graded by the updated Sydney system. Biopsy and stool specimens were cultured on Campy-blood and Belo horizonte agar plates after enrichment in selective Campy-Thio medium. To compare two stool culture protocols, stools from 20 nonbiopsied children were tested by the HpSA test and cultured either as above or after treatment with cholestyramine. Grown colonies were screened by Gram staining, slide agglutination using anti-H. pylori monoclonal IgG; positive isolates were tested by biochemical tests and polymerase chain reaction for H. pylori-specific ureA gene. Coccoid H. pylori was isolated in stool samples from the biopsied patients whose bacterial density was two to four in histology. Their oxidase was slightly positive but became positive after two subcultures, while additional biochemical tests confirmed the isolation of H. pylori. Similar coccoid but oxidase positive H. pylori was isolated from three nonbiopsied children with the protocol of cholestyramine treatment only. The density of bacteria in the stomach may influence the recovery of H. pylori from stool; inactivation of bile with cholestyramine improves the yield in culture and favors isolation of an enhanced metabolic form of bacteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".