American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review on the Role of Upper Gastrointestinal Biopsy to Evaluate Dyspepsia in the Adult Patient in the Absence of Visible Mucosal Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AGA SECTIONPopulation.This Technical Review is focused on patients older than 18 years of age who present for endoscopy with dyspepsia and no alarm symptoms (eg, dysphagia, anemia, bleeding, and weight loss) combined with normal-appearing mucosa on EGD.Erythema was classified as normal appearance of the mucosa.In studies that reported outcomes for patients with erythema separately from those with normal appearance, we reclassified erythema as "normal" and recalculated outcomes accordingly.Intervention.The intervention for each question is routine tissue acquisition and analysis.A secondary intervention (Question #2) would be the use of any special stain beyond routine H&E staining.Comparator.The intervention (biopsy) is compared with no biopsy.The use of special stains is compared with restricting histologic examination to H&E staining only.Outcome.If biopsies are sent, how accurately is the disease of interest identified in the absence of gross endoscopic findings?What is the likelihood of changing health outcomes of October
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".