Does Helicobacter pylori Infection Contribute to the Pathogenesis of Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy? A Cross-Sectional Observational Study at a Tertiary Care Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) is a routine endoscopic finding in patients with portal hypertension. Several pathophysiological mechanisms have been postulated for the same. Infection with Helicobacter pylori is one among them. However, association between them is controversial. The objectives were to detect the presence of H. pylori infection in cirrhosis with PHG and also to correlate the severity of PHG with colonization of H. pylori . Methods: A total of 100 patients diagnosed with PHG were enrolled in the study. Presence of H. pylori was assessed by rapid urease test and histopathological examination. Results were analyzed using frequency tables with cross tabulation, Chi-square test and one sample proportion test. Results: It was observed that 64% of the patients were positive for H. pylori. Relationship of H. pylori with PHG was assessed by one sample proportion test and a statistically significant relationship between them was found. Out of the 64 patients with PHG and H. pylori infection, 44 (68.7%) had severe PHG, while only 14 (44%) out of 36 H. pylori negative patients had severe PHG, reflecting a significant relation between the presence of H. pylori infection and severity of PHG. Conclusion: An increased prevalence of H. pylori infection was established in patients with PHG. Moreover, a direct correlation was found between the presence of H. pylori infection and severity of PHG. Thus, eradication therapy for H. pylori may be beneficial in patients with PHG. Clin Infect Immun. 2018;3(1):16-19 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cii80e
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".