The association between H. pylori infection and cognitive deterioration: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The association between cognitive decline and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection remains controversial, with some evidence suggesting that H. pylori eradication may slow the progression of the disease. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the bidirectional relationship between H. pylori and cognitive decline. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for double-arm studies that reported either the prevalence of cognitive decline in individuals with H. pylori-positive status or the prevalence of H. pylori infection in patients with cognitive decline. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software to pool the odds ratios from the included studies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Our search identified 1,240 records, with 16 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that patients with H. pylori had a significantly higher risk of cognitive decline (OR = 1.338, 95% CI 1.046–1.713), with the strongest association seen in studies grouping cognitive dysfunction and dementia (OR: 3.190, 95% CI 1.853–5.490). However, the risk of Alzheimer’s disease was insignificant. Cognitive decline cohorts showed a significantly higher prevalence of H. pylori (OR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.131–1.989), with a significant association with Alzheimer’s disease (OR: 1.630, 95% CI 1.064–2.497), but not with dementia or cognitive dysfunction. The association varied across study designs, with cross-sectional studies showing no association in both analyses. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 > 70% in most analyses), highlighting variability in the findings. Conclusion This meta-analysis indicates a bidirectional association between H. pylori and cognitive decline. While H. pylori infection increased the overall risk of cognitive decline, no significant link was found with Alzheimer's disease. Conversely, Alzheimer’s disease patients had a higher prevalence of H. pylori infection. High heterogeneity underscores the need for further well-designed studies to clarify this relationship.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".