Mortality rates in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Barrett's oesophagus are at increased risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Observational studies have suggested increase in overall mortality also but data are conflicting. AIM: To assess the cause of death in patients with Barrett's oesophagus compared with the general population. METHODS: Patients with Barrett's oesophagus were identified retrospectively in four hospitals in Leicestershire, UK using electronic endoscopy and histopathology records from 1997 to 2003. Data on deaths from this cohort of patients were identified through the Office of National Statistics and compared with age- and gender-adjusted mortality in the Leicestershire region. RESULT: In all, 1272 Barrett's patients were identified with 245 deaths in this cohort. Overall mortality was found to be increased [male standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 552, 95% CI = 466-638; female SMR 455, 95% CI = 357-552]. The main disease areas that were responsible for this increase were oesophageal adenocarcinoma (n = 25, male SMR = 2171, 95% CI = 991-3351; female SMR = 1300, 95% CI = 26-2574), bronchopneumonia (n = 70, male SMR = 146, 95% CI = 55-236; female SMR = 436, 95% CI = 272-601) and ischaemic heart disease (n = 51, male SMR = 186, 95% CI = 97-2748; female SMR = 205, 95% CI = 105-306). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Barrett's oesophagus die more commonly of bronchopneumonia and ischaemic heart disease compared with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and overall mortality in this group may be increased.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".