Comparison of the effects of fasting morning, fasting evening and fed bedtime administration of tenatoprazole on intragastric pH in healthy volunteers: a randomized three‐way crossover study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors is influenced by meals and administration time. AIM: To compare the effects on intragastric acidity of times of dosing of tenatoprazole, a novel imidazopyridine-based proton pump inhibitor with a prolonged plasma half-life. METHODS: This randomized three-period crossover study included 12 Helicobacter pylori-negative healthy subjects, who received tenatoprazole 40 mg either fasting at 7.00 AM, fasting at 7.00 PM or fed at 9.30 PM for 7 days, with a 2-week washout between periods. Twenty-four hour intragastric pH was monitored on day 7 of each period. RESULTS: On day 7, median 24-h pH was 4.7, 5.1 and 4.7 after breakfast, dinner and bedtime dosing, respectively (P = 0.11), whereas night-time pH was 4.2, 5.0 and 4.4 (P = 0.13). The mean 24-h percentage of time over pH 4 was 62, 72 and 64 after breakfast, dinner and bedtime dosing, respectively (N.S.), and 54, 68 and 56 during night-time (P = 0.06). Nocturnal acid breakthrough incidence decreased from 100% at baseline to 83%, 55% and 75% after 7.00 AM, 7.00 PM and 9.30 PM dosing, respectively (P = 0.18), and its mean duration dropped from 6.2 to 2.8, 1.0 and 2.2 h, respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Seven-day administration of tenatoprazole provides a prolonged duration of acid suppression, especially during the night-time, with little effect of food or time of dosing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".