Helicobacter pylori eradication: gastric cancer prevention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The principal effect of Helicobacter pylori infection is lifelong chronic gastritis, affecting up to 20% of younger adults but 50% to 80% of adults born in resource-rich countries before 1950. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of H pylori eradication treatment on the risk of developing gastric cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). RESULTS: At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 208 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 166 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 124 studies and the further review of 42 full publications. Of the 42 full articles evaluated, one systematic review was added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for two PICO combinations. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for one intervention based on information about the effectiveness and safety of H pylori eradication treatment for the prevention of gastric cancer.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".