Rosacea is associated with Helicobacter pylori: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common skin disease characterized by facial erythema, telangiectasia, papules and pustules. Helicobacter pylori infection has been suggested to play a role in the etiopathogenesis of rosacea. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse the relationship between rosacea and infection with Helicobacter pylori. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Data extraction and analyses were performed on descriptive data. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects models with DerSimonian-Laird methods were utilized to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity of results was assessed using I² statistics. RESULTS: A total of 454 articles were identified and 42 full-text articles were chosen for further review. Fourteen studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, comprising a total of 928 rosacea patients and 1527 controls. The overall association between Helicobacter pylori infection and rosacea was non-significant (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00-2.84, P = 0.052), but analysis restricted to C-urea breath test showed a significant association (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.92-5.07, P < 0.0001). Effect of eradication treatment on rosacea symptoms was assessed in seven studies, but without significant effect (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98-1.67, P = 0.069). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found weak associations between rosacea and Helicobacter pylori infection as well as an effect of Helicobacter pylori therapy on rosacea symptoms, albeit that these did not reach statistical significance. Whether a pathogenic link between the two conditions exists, or whether Helicobacter pylori infection represents a proxy for other factors remains unknown.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".