<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Infection and the Risk of Development of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma has coincided with a decrease in the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Whether these 2 phenomena are associated is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study of 128,992 members of an integrated health care system who had participated in a multiphasic health checkup (MHC) during 1964-1969. During follow-up, 52 patients developed esophageal adenocarcinoma. Three randomly chosen control subjects from the MHC cohort were matched to each case subject, on the basis of age at the MHC, sex, race, and the date and site of the MHC. Data on cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI), and education level were obtained at the MHC. Serum samples collected at the MHC were tested for IgG antibodies to H. pylori and to the H. pylori CagA protein. RESULTS: Subjects with H. pylori infections were less likely than uninfected subjects to develop esophageal adenocarcinoma (odds ratio [OR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16-0.88]). This significant association was restricted to case subjects and control subjects <50 years old at the MHC (OR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.06-0.68]). In patients with H. pylori infections, the OR for those who tested positive for IgG antibodies to the CagA protein was similar to that for those who tested negative for it. BMI >/=25 and cigarette smoking were strong independent risk factors for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: The absence of H. pylori infection, independent of cigarette smoking and BMI, is associated with a markedly increased risk of development of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".