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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".