Laryngopharyngeal reflux - LPR in selected group from outpatient ENT clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction :Global Consensus Group in Montreal confirmed that chronic laryngitis is a evidence-based related with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease/GERD/ in 2006. Aims : Evaluation of frequency LPR in patients suffer from persistent hoarseness. Assesment of relationships between LPR clinical symptoms - RSI (Reflux Symptom Index), RFS (Reflux Finding Score) and pharyngeal pH - Ryan Score Value. Materials and methods: 42 patients from the Outpatient ENT with persistent hoarseness and RSI >= 13 - excluding other cofactors: nicotinism, work involving exposure to dust and effort of the voice. In all subjects we have performed wideolaryngoscopical examination and pharyngeal pH monitoring using Dx-pH System Restech™. The control group consisted of 13 healthy volunteers. Results: Among 42 patients with persistent hoarseness we have confirmed LPR in 35 patients (83.33%). In 7 subjects pharyngeal pH monitoring excluded LPR. In all patients with LPR we have found only 5 laryngologoscopical changes in larynx among 8 according to RFS. The most frequent inflammatory changes were isolated hyperaemia / erythema of arytenoid and intraarytenoid regions (laryngitis posterior).These findings were confirmed in 30/35 patients with LPR. Median value of RFS in patients with LPR was 4.45 ,lower than the border value for LPR recognition, which is 7. This is statistically significant positive correlation between Ryan score and value in RFS (correlation coefficient 0.91, p<0.001). Among 13 healthy volunteers we have confirmed pharyngeal acidic reflux only in 1. Conclusions: We have confirmed LPR in 83.33% selected patients with hoarseness based on pharyngeal pH monitoring. RFS value below 7 don't exclude diagnosis of LPR. .
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".