MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Esomeprazole in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori

2002· review· en· W2050498853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Loren Laine

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsomeprazoleOmeprazoleProton-pump inhibitorClarithromycinHelicobacter pyloriAmoxicillinMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineAntibioticsMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy is the most commonly used treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori, with pooled eradication rates of approximately 90%. In the USA, per protocol eradication rates with 10-day proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy are approximately 85%. Esomeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor that is the S-isomer of omeprazole and produces a greater inhibition of acid secretion than omeprazole, has recently been evaluated in the treatment of H. pylori. Seven-day twice daily triple therapy with esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1 g and clarithromycin 500 mg provided intention-to-treat eradication rates of 86-90% and per protocol eradication rates of 90-91% in duodenal ulcer patients in Europe and Canada. Ten-day triple therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s., amoxicillin 1 g b.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.d. achieved intention-to-treat eradication rates of 77-78% and per protocol eradication rates of 84-85% in USA duodenal ulcer patients. Thus, esomeprazole triple therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin is effective in the treatment of H. pylori, with eradication rates comparable to previously studied proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207