Gastric cancer and other endoscopic diagnoses in patients with benign dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that endoscopy could be replaced with non-invasive assessment of helicobacter status in the initial work up of young dyspeptic patients without sinister symptoms. AIMS: To determine the incidence of gastro-oesophageal malignancy in young dyspeptic patients. METHODS: The Alberta Endoscopy Project captured clinical and demographic data on all endoscopies performed from April 1993 to February 1996 at four major adult hospitals in Alberta. The endoscopic and histological diagnosis in a subgroup of patients under 45 years of age without alarm symptoms that had undergone gastroscopy was reviewed. In addition, a random list of 200 patients was generated and their medical records reviewed in order to assess the proportion with symptoms suitable for a non-invasive management strategy. RESULTS: Gastroscopy was performed in 7004 patients under 45 years. In 3634 patients (56% female) alarm type symptoms were absent; 78.9% of patients had symptoms amenable to a non-invasive initial approach, giving a corrected sample size of 2867 patients (correction factor 0.789). Three gastric cancers, one case of moderate dysplasia, 10 biopsy proved cases of Barrett's oesophagus, and 19 oesophageal strictures/rings were detected within this sample. The corrected prevalence of gastric cancer in this select population was 1.05 per thousand patients. DISCUSSION: Endoscopy yielded three gastric cancers in this sample of under 45 year old dyspeptic patients without sinister symptoms. While initial non-invasive screening with one-week triple therapy for helicobacter positive individuals is unlikely to have a detrimental outcome the physician is advised to consider endoscopy in patients with persisting, recurrent, or sinister symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".