The Comparison of the Urea Breath Test and the Rapid Casette Test (Card Test) in Diagnosis of Helicobacter Pylori
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine sensitivity of the rapid H. pylori casette test in patients who were admitted to hospital with epigastric pain, and who were diagnosed with H. pylori positivity with the urea breath test, and to also analyze the role of the two tests in diagnosis. A total of 149 patients, 71 (48%) males, and 78 females (52%) with an average age of 41, who were admitted to Gaziantep University Faculty of Medicine Gasroenterology Polyclinic with epigastric pain were included in the study. The urea breath test was applied to the patients and separating serum from venous blood which was taken simultaneously, with the chromatographic immunoassay method (Cart test) (Medisera Diag. Inc., Canada) serum IgG levels were detected. The results of the urea breath test and card test were compared. A total of 91 (61%) of the 149 patients who were admitted to hospital with epigastric pain H.pylori urea breath test were positive; 128 (86%) of the patients who were examined with the rapid cassette test were detected as positivite. In 7 (8%)of the 91 patients who were found to be positive with the urea breath test, the card test was found to be negative, and in 44 (78%) of the 58 patients who were detected negative with urea breath test, positivity was detected with the card test. In diagnosis of H.pylori, a statistically significant difference was found between the urea breath test and the rapid H. pylori cassette test. When compared with the urea breath test, the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of the rapid H.pylori card test was found to be 21.4%, 92.3%, 65.6% and 79.1 respectively. When the results were assessed considering factors such as the possibility of a late antibody response and its persistency, as well as negative effects of antibiotic and/or proton pump inhibitors, it was thought that using the chromatographic methods in seroepidemiologic studies rather than diagnosis would be more convenient.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".