Validation of a Questionaire Regarding Gastroesophageal Reflux (GERD) in a Colombian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gastroesophageal refl ux disease (GERD) is a chronic condition resulting from retrograde fl ow of the gastroduodenal contents into the esophagus and/or adjacent organs. Prevalence of GERD in Western countries ranges from 10% to 20%. GERD accounts for 4% of consultations with family doctors. Objective: The objective of this study was to validate a scale for the Colombian GERDQ (Gastroesophageal Refl ux Questionnaire) and develop a diagnostic method for determining the severity of GERD. Materials and Methods: A diagnostic scale was validated on 84 patients and retested on 55 patients in the gastroenterology practice of the Clinica Fundadores in Bogota. All patients diagnosed with GERD by gastroenterologists from January to April 2013 were asked to answer the GERD questionnaire. Results: Multiple correspondence analysis showed that when GERDQ has an 8 point score its correlation with diagnoses made by gastroenterologists is 89% which implies a 92% correlation with the scale of Montreal. Conclusion: This study shows that the GERDQ is a valid instrument for use in Colombia by general practitioners, internists and geriatricians for diagnosing GERD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".