Assessment of Gastric Acidity by Conventional Endoscopy With Serological Gastric Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gastric acidity could determine Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori )-associated gastritis patterns. In reverse, H. pylori infection could lead disturbance in gastric acid secretion. We attempted to elucidate gastric acid status by conventional endoscopy with pepsinogen test. Methods: A total of 196 subjects who visited our health promotion center were consecutively enrolled and evaluated by conventional endoscopy, and blood examinations with pepsinogen I, II, and fasting serum gastrin were conducted. As a Japanese study suggested that in H. pylori -positive subjects the cutoff value was PG I/II ratio <= 2.7 for hypochlorhydia, PG I/II ratio >= 3.3 for hyperchlorhydria. Based on these serological data, we compared conventional endoscopic images with each acid level. Results: It showed that for hypoacidity, older age, and most of the H. pylori -associated endoscopic appearances featuring mucosal inflammation and more atrophy of corpus or antrum were in favor of hypoacidity in closed type. Mucosal appearances showing severe corpus atrophy and remnant gastritis with advanced background atrophy determine hypoacidity in open type. For hyperacidity, mucosal appearances featuring intact mucosa and less severe atrophy were associated with hyperacid status. Male gender, antrum camouflage were also involved in hyperacidity. Conclusions: Conventional endoscopy with pepsinogen test could be useful in gastric acid assessment. Gastroenterol Res. 2018;11(2):112-123 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr980w
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".