Pantoprazole provides rapid and sustained symptomatic relief in patients treated for erosive oesophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective symptom control is a primary concern of most heartburn suffers. AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of pantoprazole, placebo and the H2 antagonist nizatidine in relieving symptoms in patients with erosive oesophagitis. METHODS: Data from two randomized, double-blind studies were pooled. Patients received pantoprazole 10, 20 or 40 mg, or placebo daily (study 1, n = 603), or pantoprazole 20 or 40 mg daily or 150-mg nizatidine b.d. (study 2, n = 243) for either 4 or 8 weeks. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, week 4 and week 8. Persistent absence of symptoms was defined as the first day that no symptoms were reported by the patient on that day or any subsequent study day. RESULTS: A significantly higher percentage (P < 0.05) of pantoprazole patients reported elimination of all symptoms by week 8. Daytime heartburn, night-time heartburn and regurgitation were significantly better controlled with pantoprazole (with a dose-response at most time-points). Absence of symptoms was a powerful predictor of healing; presence of symptoms correlated poorly. CONCLUSION: Pantoprazole is more effective than placebo or nizatidine for controlling heartburn and acid regurgitation in patients with erosive oesophagitis. Relief of GERD symptoms is highly predictive of healing of erosive oesophagitis at 4 and 8 weeks.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".