Acid suppression in healthy subjects following lansoprazole or pantoprazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the effect of lansoprazole, 30 mg once daily, with that of pantoprazole, 40 mg once daily, for the inhibition of gastric acid secretion. METHODS: Two randomized, single-blind, two-way, crossover studies were conducted in 74 healthy male volunteers. Lansoprazole, 30 mg, or pantoprazole, 40 mg, was administered once daily for five consecutive days with at least a 2-week washout period between regimens. Ambulatory 24-h intragastric pH was recorded at baseline and on days 1 and 5 of each crossover treatment period. RESULTS: On day 1 in both studies, lansoprazole, 30 mg, produced significantly higher mean 24-h intragastric pH values when compared to pantoprazole, 40 mg (3.78 vs. 3.08, P < 0.001, and 3.97 vs. 3.20, P < 0.001, in the first and second studies, respectively). In both studies, lansoprazole, 30 mg, produced significantly greater proportions of time that the intragastric pH was above 3, 4 and 5 when compared with pantoprazole, 40 mg (P < 0.005 in all comparisons). By treatment day 5 in the first study, lansoprazole, 30 mg, continued to produce a higher mean 24-h intragastric pH (4.15 vs. 3.91, P=0.014) and a significantly greater percentage of time that the intragastric pH was above 4 (63% vs. 56%, P=0.017) and 5 (41% vs. 30%, P < 0.001) when compared with pantoprazole, 40 mg. In the second study, the effects on intragastric pH were comparable between the two treatment groups. Headache was the most commonly reported adverse experience (nine lansoprazole-treated subjects, seven in the first study and two in the second study; six pantoprazole-treated subjects, five in the first study and one in the second study). CONCLUSIONS: Lansoprazole, 30 mg once daily, produces a faster onset and greater degree of acid inhibition than pantoprazole, 40 mg once daily. The implications for these differences on symptom relief and healing of erosive oesophagitis should be explored.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".