Motion – All Patients with GERD Should Be Offered Once in a Lifetime Endoscopy: Arguments against the Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence for the recommendation that patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) be offered once in a lifetime endoscopy is weak and is not supported by any clinical trials. GERD is a very prevalent condition, yet only 10% of patients with GERD have Barrett's esophagus (BE). Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a rare condition and is uncommon even among patients with BE. A decision analysis found that surveillance of BE patients is performed because of inflated estimates of the rate of progression from BE to EAC. Dysplasia more often regresses to more benign histological findings than to cancer, and transient dysplasia can also lead to a high rate of unnecessary endoscopy. Even though practice guidelines about endoscopic surveillance have been published, there is no consensus among gastroenterologists about appropriate protocols, and many physicians are more aggressive than the guidelines. It has not been proved that surveillance saves lives, in part because BE rarely leads to death from EAC. The favourable results from some specialized centres may not be widely applicable. The recommendation for 'once in a lifetime' endoscopy for GERD patients is premature.
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 | 0.031 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".