Using breath tests wisely in a gastroenterology practice: an evidence-based review of indications and pitfalls in interpretation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breath tests are a simple and safe alternative to more invasive investigation strategies for many gastroenterological conditions. Both the hydrogen breath tests and the new 13C stable radioisotope breath tests are nonradioactive and safe in children and pregnancy. The range of diseases that can be identified include Helicobacter pylori infection, lactose and fructose intolerance, bacterial overgrowth, bile salt wastage, pancreatic insufficiency, liver dysfunction, and abnormal small bowel transit. In this review, the physiology supporting these tests and the principles of normal gas dynamics in the gut are briefly reviewed and then related to the test preparation and interpretation in two parts: 1) detection of H. pylori and 2) small bowel, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary disorders. A MEDLINE search reviewing all English language abstracts from 1966 to March, 2001 was performed, with an additional review of abstracts from major national meetings from 1997 to 2001. Using the information from this review, the performance characteristics of the various tests were detailed, and an attempt is made to provide some literature-based guidance regarding their indications and limitations. The interpretation of "flat" breath tests and the selective use of methane collection and colonic alkalinization are discussed. Breath tests are valuable tools that are, in general, underutilized in evaluating dyspepsia and functional bloating and diarrhea, as well as suspected malabsorption, including lactose intolerance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it