Effects of eradicating <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> on metachronous gastric cancer prevention: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection is closely associated with the incidence of gastric cancer. However, whether H pylori eradication prevents metachronous gastric cancer remains uncertain. The aim of our study is to assess how eradicating H pylori influences metachronous gastric cancer onset following treatment of early stage gastric cancer via endoscopic resective surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared individuals receiving H pylori eradication with individuals receiving placebo/nontreatment and evaluated the subsequent onset of metachronous gastric cancer as the main outcome were eligible for our study. Two authors reviewed articles and extracted data independently. Integrated results for all data were presented as risk ratio. RESULTS: Thirteen studies containing 3863 patients were consistent with study inclusion criteria. Of the 2480 individuals in whom H pylori was successfully eradicated, 163 (6.57%) developed metachronous gastric cancer, as compared with 176 (12.73%) out of 1383 persistently infected individuals. The pooled risk ratio of metachronous gastric cancer for these studies was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.57, P < .001), providing support for the therapeutic elimination of H pylori. Subgroup analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Eradicating H pylori via therapeutic treatment can effectively reduce rates of metachronous gastric cancer, and as such, it should be implemented in H pylori-infected individuals recently treated for early stage gastric cancers via endoscopic resection.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".