A Review of the Risk Factors for, Consequences, Diagnosis, and Management of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reviews the epidemiology ofHelicobacter pylori(H. Pylori) in adults with intellectual disability (ID) including clinical presentation, risk factors for infection and diseases, and assesses the best options for testing and treatment. It was observed that particular groups of adults with ID have significantly higher rates ofH. pyloriinfection, and possibly disease consequences including peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer, when compared to the general population, although the presentation with typical dyspepsia in people with ID is rare. Identified independent risk factors for infection include a history of institutionalization, lower ability, higher levels of behavior problems, and living with flatmates with oral hypersalivation or fecal incontinence. The presence of ID and the associated biopsychosocial factors necessitate development of adaptations to the usual testing and treatment methods as part of a preventive health strategy in order to relieve occult symptoms, and prevent disease development. Among the available tests, the fecal antigen or serology tests are equally acceptable to adults with ID regardless of their level of disability or behaviors, although only those who function more normally can perform the urea breath test. TheH. pylorieradication rate is lower, with treatment side‐effect and recurrence rates higher, compared to the general population; but, given the evidence that patients with ID carry the infection and associated pathology for long periods, testing and treating those with at‐risk is recommended. While not recommending screening all adults with ID forH. pyloriinfection, the authors provide an overall evidence‐based position statement on whom to test and treat, and how to diagnose and manage this infection, an important cause of preventable disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".