MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900519520 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1651

1995. Implementation of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Stool Antigen Testing in a Large Metropolitan Centre: A Prospective Comparative Diagnostic Trial

2018· article· en· W2900519520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evelyn Fong, Hong Nguyen, Sharon Kitt, Maggie Guo, Deana Sabuda, Christopher Naugler, Deirdre L. Church, Dylan R. Pillai

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHelicobacter pyloriGold standard (test)GastroenterologyUrea breath testPopulationHelicobacter pylori infection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical guidelines for H. pylori screening and post-treatment testing endorse the use of urea breath test (UBT), H. pylori stool antigen test (HpSAT), and biopsy-related tests. Due to protracted wait times at our patient service centers and non-compliance in children and elderly with complications for the UBT, we sought to compare UBT and HpSAT in the city of Calgary, Canada with a population close to 1.4 million people. To achieve this, a prospective diagnostic trial was performed comparing UBT to HpSAT in patients presenting with dyspepsia. A total of N = 150 patients agreed to undergo UBT (13C-UBT kit, Helikit, Isodiagnostika Inc.) and consented to provide a stool specimen for simultaneous HpSAT testing (Diasorin LIAISON® XL H. pylori SA Monoclonal chemiluminescent immunoassay) in our centralized laboratory. Our data show that concordant results were obtained in 148/150 (98.7%) patients with a positivity rate of 17.4%. One of two discrepants (UBT positive/HpSAT negative) resolved after repeat testing. Using UBT as the gold standard, HpSAT had a sensitivity of 96.30% (95% CI; 81.03% to 99.91%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI; 97.05% to 100.00%). A positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 99.2% (95% CI; 94.73% to 99.88%) was obtained. For patients where drug information was available, 38/130 (29.2%) had received an antibiotic associated with H. pylori in the preceding 12 months, with UBT and HpSAT providing concordant results in 37/38 (97.4%) of these individuals. Of note, 6/130 (4.6%) patients had received a specific combination anti-H.pylori treatment, and all 6/6 (100%) had concordant negative results suggesting successful eradication. A post-implementation economic evaluation of labor and materials associated with testing demonstrates a cost-savings of approximately USD5.47 per specimen in this locale. Our study confirms that HpSAT is a viable alternative to UBT for H. pylori screening in our jurisdiction with equivalent test performance and cost-savings. Pre- and post-implementation analysis of test compliance rates, waiting times, and test turn around times will also be presented. D. Pillai, Diasorin: None, Educational grant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases→Same topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies→French-language works237,207→