Esophageal Motility Disorders: Current Concepts of Pathogenesis and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current concepts of esophageal motility disorders are summarized. Primary data sources were located via MEDLINE or cross-citation. No attempt was made to be comprehensive or inclusive of the literature because fewer than 10% of citations are discussed. Instead, emphasis was placed on new developments in diagnosis, therapeutics and practice patterns. Controlled therapeutic trials and pathophysiological observations are emphasized. Achalasia is a rare disease of failed lower sphincter relaxation and aperistalsis. Diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), an equally rare disease, is defined by nonpropagated esophageal contractions. Nonspecific motility disorders, including nutcracker esophagus and hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter, are identified only by manometry and are 10 times as prevalent. Neuromuscular pathology is evident only with achalasia (myenteric plexus neuron destruction). Pharmacological therapies have limited efficacy with achalasia, more limited efficacy with DES and no efficacy with the nonspecific motility disorders. More efficacious therapies for the nonspecific disorders are directed at associated reflux disease or psychiatric disorders. Pneumatic dilation is effective therapy for achalasia in 72% of instances but frequently requires repeat dilation and is complicated by a 3% perforation rate. Surgical myotomy is effective in 88% of patients with achalasia; morbidity from thoracotomy has been the major limitation but has been sharply reduced with a laparoscopic approach. In conclusion, although it has been suggested that esophageal motility disorders are distinct clinical entities, critical review of the literature supports this only in the case of achalasia, a disease of well defined pathophysiology, functional disturbance and therapies. This clarity diminishes progressively for DES and nonspecific esophageal motility disorders.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".