Helicobacter pylori Infection and Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The majority of distal esophageal adenocarcinomas are believed to arise in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection plays an etiological role in gastric carcinogenesis, but any possible role in BE is uncertain. We aimed to explore the possible relationship between H. pylori infection and BE by meta-analysis. METHODS: Observational studies comparing the prevalence of H. pylori infection in patients with BE and healthy controls conducted in adult populations and published in all languages were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database searches up to week 5, 2008. H. pylori infection had to be confirmed by histology and/or serology and/or RUT and/or culture. Studies were excluded if no raw data for outcomes of interest were available or controls were patients with disease or duplicate publications. Summary effect size was calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by the random-effects model using Review Manager 4.2.8. RESULTS: Of 519 citations identified, a total of 12 case-control studies compared the prevalence of H. pylori infection in BE (n=550) and controls (9 studies included controls with normal endoscopy and 3 studies used healthy blood donors as control, n=2,979). There was no significant difference in the overall prevalence of H. pylori infection between BE and controls (42.9% vs. 43.9%, OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.40-1.37, P=0.34), but with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed that the prevalence of H. pylori infection was significantly lower in BE than in endoscopically normal healthy controls (23.1% vs. 42.7%, OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.93, P=0.03) with significant heterogeneity observed between studies. The heterogeneity was eliminated by excluding a single Asian outlier study. In contrast, H. pylori infection was significantly increased in BE patients in the three studies using healthy blood donors as "normal controls" (71.2% vs. 48.1%, OR=2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.55). In BE patients, the prevalence of H. pylori infection was significantly lower in the esophagus than in the stomach (3.3% vs. 24.7%, OR=0.14, 0.03-0.67) in three studies. CONCLUSIONS: H. pylori infection and BE are inversely related when compared with endoscopically normal controls but not blood donor controls. Limited evidence suggests that there is no clear association between H. pylori infection and BE. To determine more accurately the effect size of H. pylori infection in BE, high quality prospective case-control studies with age-matched, endoscopically normal healthy controls are needed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".