Gastroesophageal and extraesophageal reflux symptoms: Similarities and differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The association between extraesophageal reflux (EER) and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is inadequately understood. We used the Comprehensive Reflux Symptom Scale (CReSS) to evaluate EER and reflux-symptom prevalence in gastroenterology and otolaryngology outpatients and symptom awareness among UK gastroenterologists. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort survey. METHODS: Six hundred thirty-nine participants were surveyed: 103 controls, 359 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and 177 otolaryngology clinic patients with throat symptoms. Participants completed the CReSS questionnaire. The study was undertaken in the Endoscopy Unit and the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom. Registered members of the British Gastroenterology Society were asked to rate how frequently reflux patients might complain of each CReSS item. RESULTS: The median CReSS total in volunteers (4) was significantly lower (P < .002) than in ear, nose, and throat (ENT) patients (26) or EGD patients with (42) or without (32) esophageal inflammation. All items were scored as ≥1 by >15% of ENT patients and 28% of EGD patients. Three major, robust CReSS factors: esophageal, pharyngeal, and upper airway emerged. Of 259 gastroenterologists, >20% scored 8 of the 34 symptoms as never being reported by reflux patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of each EER CReSS item by 28% to 58% of patients with endoscopic evidence of GERD supports the Montreal consensus on an EER-GERD continuum. Gastroenterologists vary considerably in their appreciation of EER symptom relevance. The advantages of CReSS include standardized, comprehensive capture of patient experience; discriminant validity of ENT and GERD patients from volunteers; and discrete esophageal, pharyngeal, and upper airway subscales. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".