Correlation of Findings at Direct Laryngoscopy and Bronchoscopy With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
normalities with the presence or absence of a positive test result for GERD. Results: Fifty (65%) of 77 patients had GERD diagnosed with at least 1 positive test result, 21 (27%) had no clinical symptoms and no positive GERD test results, and 5 (7%) had clinical symptoms but no positive test results. There were significant differences for total laryngeal and cricotracheal scores (P,.001) between the groups with positive and negative results. Significant differences were as follows: in the larynx—large lingual tonsil (P,.001), postglottic edema (P,.001), arytenoid edema (P,.001), ventricle obliteration (P=.03), and true vocal fold edema (P=.001), and in the cricotracheal region—general edema and erythema (P=.003) and blunting of the carina (P,.001). Severe arytenoid edema, postglottic edema, or enlargement of lingual tonsil were pathognomonic of GERD. Conclusion: Many direct laryngoscopic and bronchoscopic findings correlate well with the diagnosis of GERD as determined by using other tests. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:369-374
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".