A pilot trial on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-related cough in infants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing asthma in infancy is largely made on the basis of the symptoms of cough and wheeze. A similar presentation can be seen in neurologically normal infants with excessive gastroesophageal reflux (GER). There are no randomized placebo controlled studies in infants using proton pump inhibitors (PPI) alone or in addition to prokinetic agents. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to confirm the presence of excessive GER in a population of infants that also had respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma. Second, in a randomized placebo-controlled fashion, we determined whether treatment of GER with bethanacol and omeprazole could improve these respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Infants (n=22) with a history of chronic cough and wheeze were enrolled, if they had evidence of GER by history and an abnormal pH probe or gastric emptying scan. Infants were randomly allocated to four treatment groups: placebo/placebo (PP), omeprazole plus bethanacol (OB), omeprazole/placebo (OP), bethanacol/placebo (BP). Evaluations by clinic questionnaire and exam, home diary, and pH probe data were done before, after study-medication and after open label of OB. RESULTS: Nineteen children were studied. PP did not affect GER or respiratory symptoms, and did not decrease GER measured by pH probe. In contrast, OB decreased GER as measured by pH probe indices and parental assessment. In association, OB significantly decreased daytime coughing and improved respiratory scores. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In infants with a clinical presentation suggestive of chronic GER-related cough, the use of omeprazole and bethanacol appears to be viable therapeutic option.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".