There is no difference in the disease severity of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease between patients infected and not infected with Helicobacter pylori
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of Helicobacter pylori in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is controversial. AIM: To compare the severity of GERD in infected vs. non-infected patients, as part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial that examines the impact of H. pylori eradication on GERD-related outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive GERD patients underwent urea breath testing and completed validated GERD symptom severity, and quality of life questionnaires as well as, 24-h pH-metry. These parameters, as well as demographics and endoscopic findings were assessed in double-blinded fashion and compared between H. pylori-infected and non-infected subjects. RESULTS: Helicobacter pylori-infected GERD patients (n=50) were significantly older and less educated than non-infected patients (n=51). They also used proton pump inhibitors less often but had no difference in symptoms (as measured with both the Spechler's Activity Index and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale), quality of life, endoscopic findings or 24-h pH-metry findings. CONCLUSION: This prospective, double-blind study demonstrates, using excellent GERD quantifying measures including validated symptom severity scores, endoscopy, and 24-h pH-metry, that there exist no clinically significant differences in clinical or laboratory-related GERD manifestations between H. pylori-infected and non-infected GERD patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".