The Pathogenesis of Duodenal Ulcer and the Role of <em>Helicobacter pylori</em> in This Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The pathogenesis of duodenal ulcer has never been explained although the first description of this disease in medical literature appeared in 1817. Marshall et al. concluded that Helicobacter pylori was the most important etiological factor for duodenal ulcer in 1988, but the etiology based on this bacterium is controversial and how the bacterial infection leads to ulceration is presently unknown. Objectives: This study aims to identify the cause of duodenal ulcer, address the controversial issues surrounding Helicobacter pylori, elucidate the roles of gastric acid, and describe the pathological process of duodenal ulceration. Methods: First, a comprehensive systematic review on peptic ulcers (including gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer) was conducted and the results were summarized. Second, a recently published causal relationship was employed to identify the etiology of peptic ulcers. Third, novel concepts and methods were applied to analyze the existing data on duodenal ulcer. Results: The etiology of duodenal ulcer and the roles of Helicobacter pylori and gastric acid in this disease were identified. The controversies surrounding Helicobacter pylori were addressed, and many characteristics and phenomena/observations of duodenal ulcer were elucidated. The pathological process of duodenal ulceration was described. Conclusion: Existing data accumulated over the past 300 years was sufficient, when analyzed using novel concepts, to understand the pathogenesis of duodenal ulcer. Duodenal ulcer is not an infectious disease caused by the infection of Helicobacter pylori, but a psychosomatic disease triggered by psychological stress. Helicobacter pylori plays a secondary role in only the late phase of duodenal ulceration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".