Factors Associated With Detection of Helicobacter pylori in Gastric Biopsies: A Case-Control Study of 396 Biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection is associated with significant gastric mucosal inflammation. We aimed to determine the clinicopathologic features associated with HP in gastric biopsy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-six gastric biopsies were evaluated including 165 HP-positive cases and 231 randomly selected HP-negative controls. HP was detected using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Giemsa, and immunohistochemistry staining. The univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to study the relationship of clinicopathologic characteristics and HP infection. Among the HP-positive cases, 131 cases were confirmed by H&E staining and 34 cases were confirmed by Giemsa or immunohistochemistry staining. Compared with chronic inactive gastritis, chronic active gastritis was more likely associated with having HP detected by H&E. Males were more likely to have HP gastritis than females (odds ratio: 1.72, P=0.01). The patients who had chronic active gastritis or chronic gastritis (moderate or severe) were more likely to have HP infection than patients with mild chronic gastritis (P<0.001). Conversely, patients who had intestinal metaplasia were less likely to have HP infection than patients without intestinal metaplasia (odds ratio: 0.22, P<0.001). However, concurrent atrophic gastritis was not related to HP infection (P=0.37). HP infection history was not associated with HP infection (P=0.74). CONCLUSIONS: HP detection in gastric biopsies is associated with active inflammation, male sex, and the lack of intestinal metaplasia, but not atrophic gastritis or HP infection history. Routine ancillary staining may not be required for HP detection in all biopsy specimens. We do not recommend ancillary staining for mild chronic inactive gastritis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".