MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402901305 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.01084-24

Diagnosis of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection: serology vs. urea breath test

2024· article· en· W4402901305 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Imperial, Kennard Tan, Christopher D. Fjell, Yin Xia Chang, Mel Krajden, Michael T. Kelly, Muhammad Morshed

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlFraser HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyUrea breath testMedicinePopulationHelicobacter pyloriInternal medicineImmunologyHelicobacter pylori infectionAntibodyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The objective of the study was to ascertain an optimal Helicobacter pylori diagnostic strategy using population-level laboratory data comparing the performance of serology against urea breath test (UBT). H. pylori diagnostic test results for serology and UBT from two laboratories over a 12-year period (2006–20017) were extracted, linked, and analyzed. A subset of this population underwent both methods of testing within days of each other, enabling a direct comparison of the two methods. The average prevalence of H. pylor i positivity was 21.3% by serology and 17.5% by UBT. There were 2,612 individuals who had serology performed first, followed by UBT within 14 days. For this subset, the sensitivity of serology compared with UBT was 96.5% with a specificity of 79.2%. The negative predictive value for serology was 98.4%. Contrary to various recent clinical guidelines, the data show that serology still has utility as a sensitive enough test to be used as an initial H. pylori screening test in a lower prevalence population. Negative serology can be used with confidence to rule out active infection, whereas a positive serology could be followed up with a UBT or a similar performing test such as stool antigen to differentiate active from past infection. For population-based diagnostic recommendations, such a strategy may be ideal since serology generally costs less than UBT and may be combined with a blood draw being done for other diagnostic tests. Continuing to offer serology increases options for patients and may provide economic benefits for single-payer health care systems or health maintenance organizations. IMPORTANCE This study compares the performance of serology with urea breath test in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori in a population-level data set and mimics a head-to-head direct comparison as the study population had both tests performed within 2 weeks of each other. This provides new information supporting the use of serology in a diagnostic algorithm. There are several instances where serology could be preferable to patients to rule out disease, despite some guidelines suggesting serology should not be used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology SpectrumSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207