Gastric Polyps and Nodules in Children Receiving Long-Term Omeprazole Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multiple gastric polyps have been reported to occur in adults receiving omeprazole therapy. There are little published data in children. We report our experience in monitoring the gross and histologic appearance of the stomach in children receiving long-term omeprazole therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the charts of children who received omeprazole for more than 6 months for reflux esophagitis between 1989 and 1998. All patients had repeated endoscopic examinations until healing of the esophagitis was confirmed and then annually thereafter. At endoscopy, gastric mucosal swellings were classified as polyps or nodules based on histology. RESULTS: Thirty-one children had long-term endoscopic follow-up while receiving omeprazole. Seven of 31 children had gastric polyps and/or nodules, noted between 10 and 48 months (mean = 28 months) of omeprazole therapy. Four had nodules only, one had a sessile hyperplastic polyp, and two had both a polyp (one hyperplastic and one fundic gland polyp) and nodules. All lesions were found in the gastric body. Nodules in four of the six children disappeared spontaneously while the children continued to receive omeprazole. The polyps persisted. There were no dysplastic changes in the gastric mucosa or polyps in any of the patients. There were no significant differences between the 7 children with and the 24 without polyps/nodules with respect to age, gastrin concentrations, or dose and duration of omeprazole therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric polyps and nodules may be found in children receiving long-term omeprazole therapy. The gastric changes in our patients were benign during the mean observation period of 31 months.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".