Sex differences in the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: an individual participant data pooled analysis (StoP Project)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is more frequent among men, though the magnitude of the association might be inaccurate due to potential misclassification of lifetime infection and publication bias. Moreover, infection is common, and most studies are cross-sectional. Thus, prevalence ratios (PRs) may be easier to interpret than odds ratios (ORs). AIM: The aim of this study was to quantify the association between sex and H. pylori infection using controls from 14 studies from the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: H. pylori infection was defined based on IgG serum antibody titers or multiplex serology. Participants were also classified as infected if gastric atrophy was present, based on histological examination or serum pepsinogen (PG) levels (PG I≤70 and PG I/II ratio≤3). Summary ORs and PRs, adjusted for age, social class and smoking, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Men had significantly higher OR (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70) and PR (PR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) of infection, with stronger associations among hospital-based or older controls. Results were similar when considering the presence of gastric atrophy to define infection status, particularly among participants older than 65 years. CONCLUSION: This collaborative pooled-analysis supports an independent effect of sex on the prevalence of H. pylori infection, while minimizing misclassification of lifetime infection status and publication bias.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".