<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Eradication in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia: Clearing up the Controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veldhuyzen van Zanten et al conducted a double-blind, randomized, multicentre study comparing triple therapy forHelicobacter pylorieradication to placebo for the treatment of nonulcer dyspepsia (NUD) symptoms in adult patients (1). Patients had moderate to severe epigastric pain on entry (rated at least a three on a five-point scale for at least three of the previous 14 days). The main outcome measure was the Mean Dyspepsia Summary Score (MDSS), which represents the mean severity of eight dyspepsia symptoms (epigastric pain, belching, heartburn, upper abdominal bloating, flatulence, sour taste, nausea and halitosis). Of the 1143 patients who were screened for this study in 27 centres across Canada, 157 were randomized. H pylori was eradicated in 82% of the active group compared with 6% in the placebo group. Symptoms improved in both groups over the 12-month study period, but there was no difference between the two groups in MDSS (2.34 in active and 2.30 in placebo groups at baseline, compared with 1.68 and 1.67, respectively, at the last visit). Nor were there differences in any of the individual symptoms, in the proportion of patients who achieved a certain MDSS score or in health care utilization, such as physician visits, need for additional prescriptions or days lost from work. The authors concluded that, compared with placebo, therapy forH pyloriproduced no sustained improvement of NUD symptoms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".