Low Dose Furazolidone for Eradication of H- pylori Instead of Clarithromycin: A Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection is a common chronic human bacterial infection. Triple- therapy regimen containing a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and either amoxicillin or metronidazole is commonly used as first-line treatment for its eradication. However, it may not provide the acceptable eradication rate. The present study was designed to evaluated efficacy of low dose furazolidone with amoxicillin and omeprazole for eradication of H- pylori. MATERIALS & METHODS: One hundred twenty patients with non- ulcer dyspepsia or peptic ulcer confirmed by upper GI endoscopy, plus H- pylori infection confirmed by rapid urease test were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups, and then received clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and omeprazole, or furazolidone (100 mg PO bid), amoxicillin, and omeprazole. They were evaluated using urea breath test at the end of the study. FINDINGS: The eradication rates were 57.6% and 78.8% in clarithromycin and furazolidone groups, respectively. Their difference was statistically significant (P value 0.013). No side effect was seen in the furazolidone group. CONCLUSION: Low dose furazolidone rather than clarithromycin can be used as low- cost and effective drug for eradication of H- pylori, in combination with amoxicillin and omeprazole.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".