Progression of Esophageal Dysmotility in Systemic Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To longitudinally evaluate esophageal dysmotility (ED) in patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all adult patients with SSc seen between 1995 and 2008. Patients were included if they had undergone 2 or more esophageal transit scintigraphy (ETS) studies at least 1 year apart. Data from 382 ETS studies of 102 patients with SSc were analyzed. Eighty patients had lcSSc and 22 patients had dcSSc. A grading system was used to quantify the degree of esophageal dysfunction, ranging from grade 0 (normal) to grade 3 (severe hypomotility). Change in esophageal motility over time was evaluated and compared between the limited and diffuse subtypes. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (66.7%) had an abnormal ETS study at any time. Of patients with dcSSc, 95.4% had an abnormal ETS study, compared to 58.5% of patients with lcSSc. dcSSc and regurgitation were independent risk factors for ED. There was no association between the presence of anticentromere antibodies or antitopoisomerase (anti-Scl-70) antibodies and an abnormal ETS study. Esophageal motility in patients with dcSSc worsened in 96% of cases compared with only 58.8% in those with lcSSc. CONCLUSION: ED is more frequent in patients with dcSSc than in those with lcSSc, and is more likely to deteriorate over time. Given the potential associated risks of erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and esophageal cancer in patients with SSc, routine screening and monitoring for ED is advised.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".