Should NSAID/low‐dose aspirin takers be tested routinely for <i>H. pylori</i> infection and treated if positive? Implications for primary risk of ulcer and ulcer relapse after initial healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can each result in gastric or duodenal ulcer(s) and ulcer complications. Together, H. pylori infection and NSAIDs account for approximately 90% of peptic ulcer disease. In 2003, the results of studies suggest, and guidelines recommend, the careful selection of anti-inflammatory drugs - NSAIDs or selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) based upon patients gastrointestinal history and use of aspirin therapy. Testing for, and cure of, H. pylori infection is recommended in patients prior to the initiation of NSAID therapy and in those who are currently receiving NSAIDs and have a history of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer or ulcer complications. For patients who present with peptic ulcer bleeding but require NSAIDs long-term, H. pylori eradication therapy should be considered, followed by continuous proton pump inhibitor prophylaxis to prevent re-bleeding, regardless of which kind of NSAID (nonselective NSAID /coxib) is being prescribed. Routine testing for, and eradication of, H. pylori infection has not been recommended for current takers of NSAIDs with no or low risk of complications. The management of patients taking low-dose aspirin is complex, but eradication of H. pylori infection alone in those with a past history of bleeding does not guarantee complete protection and therefore a proton pump inhibitor should also be given. The success of eradication therapy should always be confirmed, because of the risk of ulcer recurrence and bleeding in H. pylori-infected patients who require anti-inflammatory treatments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".