Nodule Regression in Adults With Nodular Gastritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nodular gastritis (NG) is associated with the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection, but there are controversies on nodule regression in adults. The aim of this study was to analyze the factors that are related to the nodule regression in adults diagnosed as NG. Methods: Adult population who were diagnosed as NG with H. pylori infection during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at our center were included. Changes in the size and location of the nodules, status of H. pylori infection, upper gastrointestinal (UGI) symptom, EGD and pathology findings were analyzed between the initial and follow-up tests. Results: Of the 117 NG patients, 66.7% (12/18) of the eradicated NG patients showed nodule regression after H. pylori eradication, whereas 9.9% (9/99) of the non-eradicated NG patients showed spontaneous nodule regression without H. pylori eradication (P < 0.001). Nodule regression was more frequent in NG patients with antral nodule location (P = 0.010), small-sized nodules (P = 0.029), H. pylori eradication (P < 0.001), UGI symptom (P = 0.007), and a long-term follow-up period (P = 0.030). On the logistic regression analysis, nodule regression was inversely correlated with the persistent H. pylori infection on the follow-up test (odds ratio (OR): 0.020, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.003 - 0.137, P < 0.001) and short-term follow-up period < 30.5 months (OR: 0.140, 95% CI: 0.028 - 0.700, P = 0.017). Conclusions: In adults with NG, H. pylori eradication is the most significant factor associated with nodule regression. Long-term follow-up period is also correlated with nodule regression, but is less significant than H. pylori eradication. Our findings suggest that H. pylori eradication should be considered to promote nodule regression in NG patients with H. pylori infection. Gastroenterol Res. 2015;8(6):296-302 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/gr692w
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".