Absence of symptomatic benefit of lansoprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin triple therapy in eradication of Helicobacter pylori positive, functional (nonulcer) dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a combination of lansoprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin (LCA) versus placebo on the severity of symptoms in functional dyspepsia patients who were positive for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial in adult patients with functional dyspepsia who were H. pylori positive. Patients were randomized to 7-day treatment with LCA or identical looking placebo. H. pylori status was confirmed by the urea breath test performed at baseline, at 6 wk, and at 6 and 12 months. The severity of eight upper GI symptoms was measured on a five-point Likert scale. The main outcomes were the change in average severity of the dyspepsia summary score of the eight symptoms and the proportion of patients who improved >/=4 points on the dyspepsia summary score. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. LCA achieved cure of H. pylori infection in 82% of patients compared to 6% in the placebo group. The severity of dyspepsia symptoms improved over the 12-month study period, but for none of the outcome measures was there a significant difference between LCA and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in sustained improvement of dyspepsia symptoms when LCA was compared with placebo. An 82% cure rate of H. pylori infection was observed with LAC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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".