MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12841604

Endoscopic evaluation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease.

2000· article· en· W12841604 on OpenAlexaff
David Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopyEsophagitisRefluxGERDInternal medicineContext (archaeology)GastroenterologyEsophagusDiseaseRegurgitation (circulation)Esophageal diseaseHeartburnReflux esophagitis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopy is, currently, the initial investigation of choice for the investigation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in clinical practice and clinical research. Erosion severity is predictive of a patient's response to therapy and of the likelihood of relapse after therapy. It is, therefore, important to grade the severity of erosive reflux esophagitis, particularly in the context of clinical trials. The Savary-Miller endoscopic classification system is used widely but usage and interpretation are very variable. The "MUSE" (metaplasia [M], ulceration [U], stricturing [S] and erosions [E]) classification provides clear definitions of the relevant endoscopic features, and it is based on a standardized report form, which allows the endoscopist to make a clear record of esophagitis severity. Recent studies confirm that endoscopists can identify erosions or mucosal breaks, ulcers, strictures, and metaplasia reproducibly. The "L.A." (Los Angeles) classification describes four grades of esophagitis severity (A to D), based on the extent of esophageal lesions known as "mucosal breaks," but it does not record the presence or severity of other GERD lesions. Thus, for patients with "complicated" reflux disease, the "MUSE" classification offers a more comprehensive description of esophagitis severity. Endoscopy is not universally applicable: 40 to 60 percent of patients with typical reflux symptoms do not have esophageal erosions and are now considered to have "endoscopy negative reflux disease" (ENRD). Thus, endoscopy is not the final arbiter as to a diagnosis of reflux disease, and it is not, therefore, a necessary prerequisite to therapy. Endoscopy is indicated at first presentation for patients with alarm symptoms referable to the upper gastrointestinal tract. It has also been proposed that all patients with chronic GERD should have a "once-in-a-lifetime" endoscopy; in the absence of Barrett's esophagus or other complications, no follow-up is required unless the patient's symptoms change significantly. A surveillance program with multiple biopsies should be instituted if there is evidence of Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopic evaluation should document the presence and extent of esophageal erosions using the L.A. or MUSE classification systems; complications should also be documented and may be recorded using the MUSE classification. Non-erosive changes such as erythema may be ignored on the basis of present evidence, and there are no clear data to support the use of endoscopic biopsies for the diagnosis of GERD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations95
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207