What are the Global Response Rates to <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Eradication Therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the world literature to determine current success rates of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment. METHODS: Computer searches were performed to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of treatment studies of H pylori infection. The searches included specifications for Asia, Africa, North America, South America and Europe. RESULTS: The data supported the current worldwide recommendation to use proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy with clarithromycin and either metronidazole or amoxycillin. There are, however, regional differences in success rates that are not completely explained by resistance to either metronidazole or amoxycillin. For second-line therapy, quadruple therapy using a PPI with bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline (PPI-BMT) is superior to an alternative PPI-based triple therapy. CONCLUSION: There is worldwide consensus that PPI-based triple therapy, preferably with clarithromycin and amoxycillin or clarithromycin and metronidazole, is used as first-line therapy. Quadruple therapy of PPI-BMT is the preferred rescue medication after initial failure of 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 | 0.071 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".