Gastro‐oesophageal reflux is more prevalent in Western dyspeptics: a prospective comparison of British and South‐East Asian patients with dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data directly comparing dyspepsia in Western and Eastern populations. AIM: To compare clinical symptoms, epidemiological factors and endoscopic diagnoses in two sample populations with dyspepsia from the United Kingdom and South-East Asia in a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients with uncomplicated dyspepsia attending endoscopy units in Leeds, UK, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, were prospectively interviewed and underwent subsequent endoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 1003 Malaysian patients (January 2002 to August 2003) and 597 Caucasian British patients (January 2000 to October 2002) were studied. The mean age was 48.7 +/- 15.8 and 47.5 +/- 13.8 years for the Malaysian and British patients respectively (P = NS). There was a higher proportion of cigarette smoking (35.7% vs. 12.4%, P < 0.0001) and alcohol consumption (34.4% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.0001) amongst British patients, but no difference in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use nor having Helicobacter pylori infection. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were more common in British compared with South-East Asian patients [heartburn (72% vs. 41%), regurgitation (66% vs. 29.8%) and dysphagia (21.1% vs. 7.3%), P < 0.0001]. This correlated with an increased endoscopic finding of oesophagitis (26.8% vs. 5.8%) and columnar-lined oesophagus (4.4% vs. 0.9%) amongst British patients (P < 0.001). A logistic regression model revealed that British Caucasian race (OR 9.7; 95% CI = 5.0-18.8), male gender (OR 2.0; 95% CI = 1.4-2.9) and not having H. pylori infection (OR 0.5; 95% CI = 0.3-0.7) were independent predictors for oesophagitis. CONCLUSION: GERD is more common in British compared with South-East Asian dyspeptic patients suggesting that race and/or western lifestyle are important risk factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".