An Update on Anti-Helicobacter Pylori Treatment in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous consensus statements have recommended one- to two-week proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapies with clarithromycin and either amoxicillin or metronidazole as first-line treatments for children with Helicobacter pylori infection. The objective of the present review was to summarize data from pediatric studies that have examined treatment efficacy, safety, drug resistance and reinfection rates related to anti-H. pylori therapies. Data from a recent meta-analysis of pediatric studies were used along with the authors' existing databases and searches of individual studies. Regimens that were identified as greater than 80% efficacious in children included a two-week therapy with a nitroimidazole and amoxicillin in Europe; a two-week regimen of bismuth, amoxicillin and metronidazole in developed countries (except Spain); a one- to two-week regimen of a PPI, clarithromycin and amoxicillin in Northern Europe, Asia and the Middle East; and a two-week regimen of a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole in Canada. Although recommended as a first-line treatment in adults, two-week treatment with a PPI, clarithromycin and amoxicillin eradicated only 68% of H. pylori infections in North American children. Treatment efficacy was reduced in the presence of metronidazole and/or clarithromycin resistance. Further studies of anti-H. pylori treatments in children in North America and developing countries are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".