A randomized comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg versus pantoprazole 40 mg for healing erosive oesophagitis: the EXPO study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy of the 8-week therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg vs. pantoprazole 40 mg for healing erosive oesophagitis (EE) as part of a management study. METHODS: Patients had a history of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms (> or =6 months) and had suffered heartburn on at least 4 of the 7 days preceding enrollment. Endoscopies were performed to grade EE severity using the Los Angeles (LA) classification system at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks (if unhealed at 4 weeks). Heartburn severity was recorded by patients on diary cards. The primary end point was healing of EE by week 8 of treatment. RESULTS: Of 3170 patients randomized, the intent-to-treat population consisted of 3151 patients (63% male, mean age: 50.6 years, 27% Helicobacter pylori-positive). Esomeprazole 40 mg healed a significantly greater proportion of EE patients than pantoprazole 40 mg at both 4 weeks (life table estimates: esomeprazole 81%, pantoprazole 75%, P < 0.001) and 8 weeks (life table estimates: esomeprazole 96%, pantoprazole 92%, P < 0.001). The median time to reach sustained heartburn resolution was 6 days in patients receiving esomeprazole and 8 days with pantoprazole (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole 40 mg is more effective than pantoprazole 40 mg for healing EE and providing resolution of associated heartburn.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".