Temporal Trends in Helicobacter pylori Eradication Success in a Test-and-Treat Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although the efficacy of first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection should aim to be > 90%, it is unclear whether this target has been achieved in Israel. We aimed to determine the success rate of treatment for H. pylori and to describe temporal changes in our region. Methods: Adult patients who underwent a first-time -C13-urea breath test (C13-UBT) at Clalit Health Services between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 were included. In order to isolate a naïve "test-and-treat" population who were unlikely to have undergone an initial endoscopy-based H. pylori test, we excluded patients ≥45 years and those with any previous C13-UBT. RESULTS: A total of 94,590 subjects (36.1% male, age 28.5 ± 6.0) who underwent at least one C13-UBT during the study period were included. C13-UBT was positive in 48,509 (51.3%) subjects. A confirmatory post-treatment C13-UBT was performed in 37.8, 44.1, 46.6, and 45.9% following 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-line treatment respectively. Eradication was successful in 65.4% following first-line treatment, and eradication success improved during the study period (59.2, 63.3, 65.7, 66.0, 69.0, and 73.1% in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively; OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.09-1.13; p < 0.0001). Eradication was successful in 44.7% following second-line treatment, although eradication success did not significantly improve during the study period (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.10; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing success of first-line treatment for H. pylori infection over the study period, eradication rates remain suboptimal. Initiatives to implement the Toronto and Maastricht Consensus Reports should be advanced.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".