Physician perspectives of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic and treatment practices in Canada: results of a Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection is prevalent worldwide and can lead to peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastric cancer. Effective diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection by gastroenterologists and family physicians is crucial. However, there are differing views on optimal diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study is to understand the impressions of Canadian physicians regarding H. pylori diagnosis and treatment and whether impressions differ between gastroenterologists and family physicians. A second objective is to understand physician perspectives on rising antibiotic resistance and how that guides empiric management. METHODS: A survey facilitated via REDCap was administered to Canadian gastroenterologists and family physicians. A total of 105 participants completed the survey, including 43 gastroenterologists and 62 family physicians. Gastroenterologists were recruited from across the country and family physicians were recruited from Manitoba. RESULTS: For diagnosis of H. pylori, 67% of gastroenterologists reported endoscopic biopsies for histology assessment as most common and 73% of family physicians reported serology as their main diagnostic test. While nearly all gastroenterologists believed antibiotic resistance to be a problem, nearly one quarter of family physicians did not believe it was a problem. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in practices among both gastroenterologists and family physicians regarding diagnosis of H. pylori infection. There was consensus that local antibiotic resistance patterns should guide management. If known, the degree and patterns of antibiotic resistance could bring a more uniform consensus to H. pylori management. Greater education of physicians, especially family physicians regarding management of H pylori is needed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".