Evidence‐based Guidelines From ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As the clinical implications of Helicobacter pylori infection in children and adolescents continue to evolve, ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN jointly renewed clinical guidelines using a standardized evidence-based approach to develop updated recommendations for children and adolescents in North America and Europe. METHODS: An international panel of 11 pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 epidemiologists, 1 microbiologist, and 1 pathologist was selected by societies that developed evidence-based guidelines based on the Delphi process with anonymous voting in a final face-to-face meeting. A systematic literature search was performed on 8 databases of relevance including publications from January 2000 to December 2009. After excluding nonrelevant publications, tables of evidence were constructed for different focus areas according to the Oxford classification. Statements and recommendations were formulated in the following areas: whom to test, how to test, whom to treat, and how to treat. Grades of evidence were assigned to each recommendation based on the GRADE system. RESULTS: A total of 2290 publications were identified, from which 738 were finally reviewed. A total of 21 recommendations were generated, and an algorithm was proposed by the joint committee providing evidence-based guidelines on the diagnostic workup and treatment of children with H pylori infection. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical practice guidelines represent updated, best-available evidence and are meant for children and adolescents living in Europe and North America, but they may not apply to those living on other continents, particularly in developing countries with a high H pylori infection rate and limited health care resources.
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 | 0.037 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".