<i>Campylobacter concisus</i> gastritis masquerading as <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> on gastric biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Campylobacter concisus is a Gram-negative rod closely related to Helicobacter pylori. We sought to identify gastric biopsies positive for C. concisus that had been misdiagnosed as H. pylori gastritis in our routine surgical pathology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of gastric biopsies in our regional microbiology and pathology electronic records to identify cases that were submitted for H. pylori testing in which C. consicus was identified on culture and how many had concurrent biopsies sent to pathology for histologic assessment over a two-year period (2017-2018). Pathologic findings in the gastric biopsies were reviewed and immunohistochemical staining for H. pylori was performed. RESULTS: 50 of 2191 gastric biopsy specimens submitted to microbiology in 2017-18 grew C. concisus (2.3%), compared to 168 in which H. pylori was identified (7.7%). Twenty-eight cases had concurrent histology. A total of four cases (three from 2017 and one from 2018) demonstrated organisms morphologically identical to H. pylori in the H&E sections, of which all were H. pylori immunoreactive. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series is the first to demonstrate that C. concisus can mimic H. pylori gastritis in routine biopsy pathology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".