Endoscopy-based Kyoto classification score of gastritis related to pathological topography of neutrophil activity

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients

Baseline characteristics of patients
Number	327
Female sex, %	50.7
Age, mean (± SD), yr	50.2 (12.3)
Body mass index, mean (± SD), kg/m2	22.4 (3.1)
Drinking, %	26.0
Smoking, %	8.3
Family history of gastric cancer, %	16.8
Positive Helicobacter pylori antibody, %	82.9
Kyoto score, mean (± SD)	4.63 (1.89)
Atrophy score, mean (± SD)	1.35 (0.69)
Intestinal metaplasia score, mean (± SD)	0.61 (0.88)
Enlarged folds score, mean (± SD)	0.47 (0.50)
Nodularity score, mean (± SD)	0.40 (0.49)
Diffuse redness score, mean (± SD)	1.71 (0.64)

Table 2 Association between Kyoto classification score and the topographic distribution of neutrophil activity

	Inactive stomach	Antrum-predominant gastritis	Pangastritis	Corpus-predominant gastritis	P value
Atrophy score, mean (± SD)	1.03 (0.80)	1.30 (0.64)	1.46 (0.61)	1.76 (0.52)	< 0.001
Intestinal metaplasia score, mean (± SD)	0.53 (0.83)	0.54 (0.83)	0.57 (0.88)	1.36 (0.91)	< 0.001
Enlarged folds score, mean (± SD)	0.18 (0.39)	0.54 (0.50)	0.57 (0.50)	0.56 (0.51)	< 0.001
Nodularity score, mean (± SD)	0.27 (0.45)	0.32 (0.47)	0.53 (0.50)	0.28 (0.46)	< 0.001
Diffuse redness score, mean (± SD)	0.97 (0.85)	1.83 (0.49)	1.97 (0.25)	1.96 (0.20)	< 0.001

P value was calculated using Kruskal–Wallis test.

Table 3 Multivariate analysis for the topographic distribution of neutrophil activity

	Inactive stomach	Antrum-predominant gastritis	Pangastritis	Corpus-predominant gastritis	P value
No.	73	82	147	25
Female sex, %	50.7	42.7	52.4	48.0	0.646
Age, mean (± SD), yr	53.6 (14.1)	46.8 (10.4)	48.7 (11.3)	60.4 (10.9)	< 0.001
Body mass index, mean (± SD), kg/m2	22.8 (3.1)	22.9 (3.6)	22.0 (2.8)	21.8 (3.2)	0.254
Drinking, %	27.4	23.2	25.2	36.0	0.758
Smoking, %	9.6	8.5	5.4	20.0	0.083
Family history of gastric cancer, %	13.7	18.3	15.0	32.0	0.162
Positive Helicobacter pylori antibody, %	45.2	92.7	95.2	88.0	< 0.001
Kyoto score, mean (± SD)	3.05 (2.36)	4.57 (1.52)	5.21 (1.35)	5.96 (1.17)	< 0.001

P value was calculated using the multinomial logistic regression analysis.