Natural history of autoimmune atrophic gastritis: a prospective, single centre, long‐term experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autoimmune atrophic gastritis (AAG) is an immune-mediated disorder characterised by destruction of gastric oxyntic mucosa AIM: To explore gastric histopathological evolution in a cohort of AAG patients over a prolonged follow-up METHODS: Single centre prospective study enrolling consecutive patients with histologically confirmed AAG between 2000 and 2018. All AAG patients undergoing endoscopic follow-up every 1-3 years were classified as having stages 1, 2 or 3 according to atrophy severity (mild, moderate and severe). AAG patients with either glandular or neuroendocrine dysplasia/neoplasia were classified as having stage 4. Disease stage progression, and changes in serum anti-parietal cell antibody (PCA), chromogranin A and gastrin-17 were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 282 AAG patients (mean age 60.3 years; F:M ratio 2.4:1; median follow-up 3 years, interquartile range 1-7) were enrolled. All patients with stages 1 or 2 progressed to stage 2 or 3 over time with a steady trend (P = .243) and regression from a severe to a milder stage was never noticed. Disease progression of patients with stages 1 or 2 occurred within the first 3 years. PCA positivity rate did not change over time. Stage 3 patients had higher gastrin-17 levels compared to patients with stages 1 and 2 (median 606 vs 295 pg/mL; P < .001). In stage 3, the hazard ratio for the risk of developing stage 4 was 6.6 (95% CI 1.5-29; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: AAG is a steadily progressive disease, in which stages 1 and 2 always progress to stage 3. The risk of developing a complicated disease stage is greater in patients with more severe gastric lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".