MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Global Incidence of Peptic Ulcer Disease at the Turn of the 21st Century: A Study of the Organization for Economic Co—Operation and Development (OECD)

2018· article· en· W2921154235 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Azhari, James A. King, Fox E. Underwood, Stephanie Coward, Shailja C. Shah, Grace Ho, Connie Chan, Siew C. Ng, Gilaad G. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)DemographyPeptic ulcerDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The incidence of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and its complications vary worldwide and have changed over the past few decades with the identification of H. pylori and NSAIDs as major etiologic factors, as well as the marked increase in the use of PPIs. Our primary objective was to determine differences in the worldwide trends of PUD incidence starting at the turn of the 21st century. Methods: We obtained data from the Organization for Economic Co—Operation and Development (OECD) database on hospital discharges with PUD as a primary diagnosis for 35 countries from 2000 to 2015. Hospitalization rates were converted to rates per 100,000 person—years. Joinpoint regression models were used to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rate of PUD—related hospitalizations for each country from 2000 to 2015 according to 3 predefined 5—year periods: 2000—2005; 2006—2010; and 2011—2015 (Table 1). Temporal inflection points were also assessed. Choropleth maps were created to illustrate the differences in hospitalization rates over time by geographic location, stratified by terciles of hospitalization rates (Fig. 1). We additionally performed a random—effects meta—analysis of AAPCs to calculate an overall AAPC (Fig. 2).1198_A Figure 1. Hospitalization rates and temporal trends for PUD hospitalizations among 35 OECD Countries at the turn of the 21st century.1198_B Figure 2. Forest plot of pooled AAPC in the hospitalization for PUD in OECD countries.Results: PUD—related hospitalization rates from OECD countries are presented in Table 1. The overall median hospitalization rate was 45.81 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 31.49 to 63.61 per 100,000 person—years. Average hospitalization rates from 2011 to 2015 were highest in Eastern Europe (Lithuania: 135.16), Western Europe (Germany: 84.90), and Asia (Turkey: 80.05), while they were lowest in South America (Mexico 4.54 and Chile 14.48) and Asia (Israel 12.98). All countries demonstrated decreasing hospitalization rates except for Switzerland (Table 1, Fig. 2). Overall, hospitalization rates for PUD decreased significantly from 2000 to 2015 (Pooled AAPC = —3.9%; 95% CI: —3.3, —4.5) (Fig. 2). Conclusion: PUD—related hospitalizations are decreasing in the vast majority of OECD countries and likely reflect an overall decreasing incidence of PUD. That said, PUD—related complications continue to pose an important health issue with significant demands on health care systems. Detailed data collection and analysis which includes the different disease subtypes and complications would aid in developing improved strategies for accelerating the downward trend in PUD and its complications.1198_C Figure 3. PUD—related hospitalization incidence rate terciles for OECD countries in 3 time periods: A. 2000—2005, B. 2006—2010, C. 2011—2015.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207