Helicobacter pylori status among patients undergoing gastroscopy in rural northern Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the Helicobacter pylori status of patients who underwent gastroscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Peace River Community Health Centre in rural northwestern Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from patients who had a gastroscopy performed by either of 2 family physicians between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients who had positive test results for H pylori overall and among first-time gastroscopy patients. For first-time gastroscopy patients, the associations between H pylori infection and patient age, sex, residence, and procedural indications and findings were explored. RESULTS: A total of 251 gastroscopies were conducted in 229 unique patients during the study period. Overall, 12.4% (95% CI 8.3% to 16.4%) of patients had positive results for H pylori and among the 159 first-time gastroscopy patients, 17.6% (95% CI 11.7% to 23.5%) had positive test results for H pylori. Helicobacter pylori status did not differ significantly by geography, sex, or age. The prevalence of H pylori was higher among patients with H pylori-related indications for gastroscopy (such as dyspepsia and upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding) than among patients with other indications; however, H pylori infection was not statistically significantly greater in patients diagnosed with peptic ulcer disease. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of H pylori infection among patients undergoing gastroscopy in rural northern Alberta appears lower than other Canadian estimates. In regions with low H pylori rates, patients with dyspepsia might be better served by acid suppression and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug cessation before investigating for H pylori infection. Population-based research is required to further describe regional differences in H pylori rates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".