Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sirs, I would like to thank Sostek and Hwang1 for pointing out the unfortunate error in my review article.2 My manuscript, as originally submitted, read as follows: ‘Treatments based on the above principles have led to high overall healing rates of erosive oesophagitis around 90% after 8 weeks.3 However, patients with Los Angeles Grades C and D show much lower healing rates (62–84%).4 In another clinical trial of 2425 patients, esomeprazole 40 mg once daily healed significantly more than omeprazole 20 mg once daily (94% vs. 84%) at 8 weeks as well as for all LA grades according to the classification at baseline,5 but the failure rate was still high for grade C (30% vs. 13%) and for grade D (36% vs. 20%) in esomeprazole users’.5 During the editing process the figures for those not healed became transposed into a healing rate. This simple error was regrettably not picked up at the proof stage. I appreciate Sostek and Hwang providing the table from an abstract published by their group in 2000 which shows a similar number of unhealed patients to those I quoted, ranging from 9% to 16% of patients with grades C and D at 8 weeks on esomeprazole and 24–28% on omeprazole, respectively. Moreover, in their more recent study, together with Fennerty and Johanson6 they show 20% of grade C and 33% of grade D patients unhealed after esomeprazole 40 mg daily for 8 weeks, and 40% of grade C and more than 60% of grade D patients unhealed at 4 weeks. I am sure that Sostek and Hwang would agree with my conclusion that these figures, taken together, represent an unmet need and that a significant proportion of patients can still pose a challenge to management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".