How Well Is<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>Treated in Usual Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori is a WHO class I carcinogen also associated with nonmalignant gastrointestinal diseases. Effective treatment exists, and all persons infected with H pylori should receive treatment. However, data regarding the rates of treatment prescription in clinical practice are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of H pylori treatment in usual practice. METHODS: Patients with histological evidence of H pylori infection between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario) were identified. Charts were reviewed to determine the rates of H pylori treatment and confirmation of eradication, when indicated. Questionnaires were subsequently sent to endoscopists of patients identified as not having received treatment to determine the reasons for lack of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were H pylori positive and were appropriate candidates for treatment, of whom 58 (57%) were male and 78 (76%) were outpatients, with 92 (90%) receiving eradication therapy. When indicated, 15 of 22 (68%) patients received confirmation of eradication, 13 of 18 (72%) patients underwent repeat endoscopy and 86% received complete therapy. Outpatients were more likely to receive eradication therapy (OR 10.3 [95% CI 2.6 to 40.4]; P=0.001) and complete therapy (OR 13.2 [95% CI 3.8 to 45.7]; P=0.0001) compared with inpatients. Having a follow-up appointment resulted in higher treatment rates (OR 12.0 [95% CI 3.0 to 47.5]; P=0.001). CONCLUSION: During the time period studied, adequate rates of H pylori treatment were achieved in outpatients and patients who had formal follow-up at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. However, some aspects of care remain suboptimal including treatment of inpatients and care following treatment. Additional studies are required to identify strategies to improve the care of patients infected with H pylori.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".