The impact of body mass index and<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>infection on gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms: A population-based study in Northern Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increased body mass index (BMI) has been proposed as a risk factor for gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of BMI and Helicobacter pylori on reflux symptoms in an adult population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this cross-sectional, population-based study from Bodø and Sørreisa communities in Northern Norway, a total of 3927 adults were invited to complete a questionnaire on gastrointestinal symptoms and to provide stool samples for the assessment of H. pylori. Reflux symptoms were considered present when a reflux syndrome score was > or =2 according to the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS). RESULTS: The response rate was 44.2%, and 44.7% of the respondents were male. Age-adjusted prevalences were: for overweight, 35.6% (95% CI (32.4%; 38.8%)); for obesity, 10.0% (8.4%; 11.6%); for H. pylori: 21.2% (19.1%; 23.9%) and for reflux symptoms: 21.7% (19.5%; 23.9%). In the logistic regression analyses, H. pylori and smoking were not risk factors for reflux symptoms, whereas male gender (OR 4.78 (95%CI (1.88; 12.1)), age (1.01 (1.00; 1.03)) and overweight (1.51 (1.14; 2.00)) were. When stratified by gender, overweight and age were independent risk factors for reflux symptoms in females only, whereas H. pylori infection was protective against such symptoms in men. Models including these parameters could only explain 3% of the variations in reflux symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: BMI is an independent risk factor for gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms among healthy female adults, but contributes only to a minor part of the variation in these symptoms. H. pylori is protective against reflux symptoms in men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".