Helicobacter pylori <i>and gastric cancer − the clinicians' point of view</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the incidence of gastric cancer has declined dramatically in Western countries, the most recent data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer show that it remains the second most common cancer worldwide and caused 628 000 deaths in 1990. The incidence and prevalence of gastric cancer are projected to increase over the next few decades in less developed countries as a result of the increased longevity of H. pylori-infected populations and improved therapies. Gastric carcinogenesis is a multistep and multifactorial process beginning with H. pylori-associated gastritis in most cases. H. pylori infection, together with other environmental factors and individual susceptibility, determine the final risk for the development of gastric cancer. The magnitude of H. pylori infection as a risk factor for gastric cancer in the published H. pylori and gastric cancer epidemiology studies may have been underestimated due to the inclusion of improperly selected controls. Eradication of the infection has been shown to prevent the occurrence of metachronous gastric cancer following endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer in a Japanese study. However, the generalization of this study to other populations is difficult because of the vast differences in the definition of gastric atrophy and early gastric cancer between Japanese and Western pathologists. Until an international consensus on the pathological diagnosis of gastric atrophy and early gastric cancer is reached, interpretation of studies performed in different countries remains difficult. Clinicians rely on the correct pathological diagnosis to guide the management of H. pylori infection-associated gastrointestinal diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".