Chronic acid-related disorders are common and underinvestigated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were as follows: to establish the prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders in a managed care population; to describe these patients; and to examine rates of adherence to current guidelines for investigation of dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study. The sample was drawn from 216,720 adult (aged >18 yr) members of a managed care organization that had an electronic medical record linked to administrative and pharmacy databases. We included adults with continuous enrollment from July, 1998, to January, 2000, who were dispensed histamine-2 blockers or proton-pump inhibitors, or both, for > or =1 yr. Dispensing data, sociodemographic and clinical information, comorbidities, and investigations were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 5064 patients; 64% were aged > or =50 yr, 47% were male, and 11% were African American. The prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders was 2.3%. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (59%) was the most common condition, followed by dyspepsia (35% of cohort; 18% investigated by endoscopy). There were 917 dyspepsia patients > or =50 yr who had not been investigated by endoscopy (81% of dyspepsia patients in this age group). There were 97 patients with peptic ulcer disease who did not have a documented test for Helicobacter pylori (34% of patients with peptic ulcer disease). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic acid-related disorders are common in primary care, and many patients use acid suppressing medications on a long-term basis. Nevertheless, according to current practice guidelines, our patients were underinvestigated. Future guidelines should specifically address the management of patients who use acid suppressing medications on a chronic basis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".