MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215838699 · doi:10.1155/2005/213608

Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Helicobacter Pylori Infection in Children

2005· review· en· W2215838699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sibylle Koletzko

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHelicobacter pyloriSalivaUrea breath testBreath testUrineInternal medicineRapid diagnostic testDiagnostic testAntibodyClinical PracticeGastroenterologyHelicobacter pylori infectionImmunologyMonoclonal antibodyPediatricsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noninvasive tests can be used for the initial diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection and to monitor the success of eradication therapy. In populations with a low prevalence of H. pylori infection (children living in North America and Europe), a high sensitivity is required to make the test valuable for clinical practice. The 13C-urea breath test has been validated in children of different age groups in a significant number of infected and noninfected children in several countries and, thus far, is the only noninvasive test that fulfills sensitivity and specificity quality standards. In studies to date, enzyme immunoassays using monoclonal antibodies to detect H. pylori antigen in stool provide excellent results, but the number of children tested, particularly post-treatment, is not sufficient to recommend the test. All other noninvasive stool tests or methods based on the detection of specific antibodies in serum, whole blood, urine or saliva have limited accuracy in comparison with the 13C-urea breath test. Therefore, these tests cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in pediatric patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207