Should We Test for Helicobacter Pylori before Treating Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common problem in childhood. The cause is uncertain but because the incidence of GERD is increasing in developed countries and the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori is decreasing, it has been suggested that this infection protects against GERD. Observational data from 95 children, however, suggest that H. pylori eradication does not have a deleterious effect on GERD and this is supported by randomized controlled trials in adults. H. pylori eradication may also reduce the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor therapy in infected patients. There are no data from children but inferences from randomized controlled trials in adults suggest this effect is likely to be modest and of uncertain clinical significance. H. pylori is an important risk factor for distal gastric adenocarcinoma. It is likely that treating the infection in childhood will prevent pre-malignant changes associated with H. pylori from developing in the future. A meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials suggest that there is a statistically significant impact on healing of chronic gastritis after one year compared with placebo (RR of chronic gastritis: 0.27; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.32). H. pylori eradication is therefore recommended in children with GERD that are having an endoscopy. However, when the diagnosis of GERD is being made clinically or by pH monitoring, it is not necessary to screen for H. pylori.
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 | 0.032 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".