Perception of dysphagia: lack of correlation with objective measurements of esophageal function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanism underlying increased perception of food bolus passage in the absence of esophageal mechanical obstruction has not been completely elucidated. A correlation between the intensity of the symptom and the severity of esophageal dysfunction, either motility (manometry) or bolus transit (impedance) has not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between objective esophageal function assessment (with manometry and impedance) and perception of bolus passage in healthy volunteers (HV) with normal and pharmacologically-induced esophageal hypocontractility, and in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) with and without ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). METHODS: Combined manometry-impedance was performed in 10 HV, 19 GERD patients without IEM and nine patients with IEM. Additionally, nine HV were studied after 50 mg sildenafil, which induced esophageal peristaltic failure. Perception of each 5 mL viscous swallow was evaluated using a 5-point scale. Manometry identified hypocontractility (contractions lower than 30 mmHg) and impedance identified incomplete bolus clearance. KEY RESULTS: In HV and in GERD patients with and without IEM, there was no association between either manometry or impedance and perception on per swallow analysis (OR: 0.842 and OR: 2.017, respectively), as well as on per subject analysis (P = 0.44 and P = 0.16, respectively). Lack of correlation was also found in HV with esophageal hypocontractility induced by sildenafil. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: There is no agreement between objective measurements of esophageal function and subjective perception of bolus passage. These results suggest that increased bolus passage perception in patients without mechanical obstruction might be due to esophageal hypersensitivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".