Diagnostic Performance of Gastric Imprint Smear for Determination of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of several methods (invasive and noninvasive) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, no test is considered to be the 'gold standard'. Endoscopy-based tests are regarded as the reference method in most studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of imprint cytology smears of antral biopsies compared with Gram-stained smears, the rapid urease test and culture methods, separately and in combination. METHODS: Antral biopsies were obtained from consecutive patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at a single centre. The biopsies were examined for the presence of H pylori by Gram-stained smear, the rapid urease test, culture methods and imprint cytology smear. RESULTS: A total of 273 biopsies were studied. All tests were positive in 36% of the patients. Of 252 biopsies tested, 73% were positive using the imprint cytology technique. Using Gram-stained smear, the rapid urease test and culture methods individually, the sensitivity and specificity of imprint cytology smears for the detection of H pylori were found to be 92.7% and 50%; 92.7% and 49%; and 92.4% and 38.5%, respectively. Combining the three microbiological methods resulted in a sensitivity of 92.1%, a specificity of 51.0% and an efficiency of 71.7% for imprint cytology smears. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic examination provides useful clinical information. Imprint gastric cytology can be used as a rapid test to establish the diagnosis of H pylori infection at the time endoscopy is performed, enabling the endoscopist to start treatment with immediate effect.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".