Implications of Antibiotic Resistance in the Management of<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Infection: Canadian<i>Helicobacter</i>Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori from the gastric and duodenal mucosa is an important clinical goal in the treatment of infected patients with peptic ulcer disease and other H pylori-associated conditions. Although several oral drug combination regimens are associated with eradication rates of approximately 85% in controlled trials, the success rate in patients infected with a resistant strain of H pylori is closer to 75%. Resistance to metronidazole and clarithromycin, which are common components of combination treatment regimens, is of greatest concern. Reported rates of H pylori resistance to various antibiotics vary considerably. In Canada, the data documenting H pylori susceptibility are limited but suggest that resistance to these antibiotics varies geographically and within specific treatment groups. Although susceptibility testing is not a prerequisite for initial treatment of individual patients infected with H pylori, formal efforts to identify and monitor both the causes and prevalence of antibiotic resistance across Canada are a much needed step in the ongoing management of this important infection. Recommended treatment regimens may be useful, even for treating apparently resistant H pylori strains. However, it is important to understand the mechanisms of the development of resistant strains to manage patients with treatment failure better.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".