The Efficacy of Probiotics in Treatment of Helicobacter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The standard triple therapy has lost a considerable proportion in it efficiency in treating Helicobacter pylori infection. As such several alternatives and adjuvants have been proposed. One the most promising modulation is the supplementation this therapy with probiotics. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of probiotic supplementation to traditional triple therapy in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection and alleviation of side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study included 310 consecutive patients newly diagnosed with gastritis or dyspepsia and infected with H. pylori. Patients were randomly divided into three groups based on treatment regimes. Group A: 100 patients received triple therapy consisting of omeprazole, amoxicillin and levofloxacin for two weeks. Group B: 100 patients received tinidazole, levofloxacin and omerprazole for two weeks. Group C: 110 patients received the second protocol plus the probiotic. All patients were reinvestigated four weeks after accomplished treatment by stool antigen test for H. pylori. RESULTS: The rate of successful H. pylori eradication was 77.74%. In multivariate analysis, each of age≤ 35 years (OR=0.51, 95%CI=0.28-0.93), being married (OR= 0.37, 95%CI=0.21-0.71), never smoker (OR= 0.55, 95%CI=0.32-0.95) and treatment regime with triple therapy supplemented probiotics (OR= 3.36, 95%CI=2.5-21.7) were significantly associated with increased the eradication rate. The overall incidence of side effect in group C was (7.27%) was lower than that B (19%) with significant difference, and group A (15%) with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The use of probiotics as an additive for the standard triple therapy significantly increases the eradication of H. pylori and may reduce the incidence of side effect of the traditional therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".