Mathematical model of the relationship between pH holding time and erosive esophagitis healing rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective suppression of gastric acid secretion promotes healing of erosive esophagitis. Treatment guidelines recommend proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H 2 –receptor antagonists (H 2 RAs). Emerging evidence also supports potassium‐competitive acid blockers (P‐CABs). The aim was to construct a mathematical model to examine the relationship between pH holding time ratios (HTRs) and erosive esophagitis healing rates with H 2 RAs, PPIs and P‐CABs. By literature search, we identified studies of H 2 RAs, PPIs or P‐CABs that reported mean pH >4 HTRs at steady state (days 5–8) and erosive esophagitis healing rates after 4 and/or 8 weeks. We aggregated treatments by drug class and developed a non‐linear, mixed‐effects model to explore the relationship between pH >4 HTRs and healing rates. The pH dataset included 82 studies (4297 participants; 201 dosage arms); healing rate data came from 103 studies (43,417 patients; 196 treatment arms). P‐CABs achieved the longest periods with intragastric pH >4, and the highest healing rates after 4 and 8 weeks. The predicted probabilities of achieving ≥90% healing rates at 8 weeks were 74.1% for P‐CABs, 17.3% for PPIs and 0% for H 2 RAs. P‐CABs provide the longest duration with intragastric pH >4 and, accordingly, the highest healing rates of erosive esophagitis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".