Gastric Acid Secretory Response in<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>-Positive Patients with Duodenal Ulcer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with duodenal ulcer (DU) have an increased parietal cell mass and sensitivity to secretagogues, with increased acid output. AIM: To determine the effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on parietal cell sensitivity and gastric acid secretion. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five H pylori-positive DU patients and 18 H pylori-negative healthy volunteers were studied. Serum H pylori immunoglobulin G, basal acid output and acid secretory response to graded doses of pentagastrin were determined before and after treatment, at six months and at one year. Subjects were randomly assigned to ranitidine or sucralfate treatment for six weeks, and all DU patients received bismuth subsalicylate, metronidazole and tetracycline for the first two weeks. RESULTS: H pylori was eradicated in 66% of patients receiving sucralfate and 92% receiving ranitidine. Compared with healthy volunteers, DU patients demonstrated a 2.7-fold greater basal acid output, a 1.3-fold greater peak acid output, significantly higher acid output for each dose of pentagastrin and a 1.38-fold increase in the area under the pentagastrin dose acid response curve. Cure of H pylori, irrespective of ulcer healing regimen, resulted in a gradual decrease in acid secretory capacity with basal acid output, peak acid output and area under the pentagastrin dose acid response curve returning to healthy volunteer levels by one year. No demonstrable differences were observed in parietal cell sensitivity in all subjects before or after treatment. These data suggest that disturbances in acid secretion in H pylori-positive DU patients are not due to an increased parietal cell sensitivity to pentagastrin but rather due to an increased parietal cell mass with increased capacity to secrete acid, which gradually resolves following cure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".