Systematic review: persistence and severity in gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management strategies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are often inconsistent with the proposition that it is a persistent or chronic disease. AIM: To determine the persistence of reflux symptoms and complications associated with GERD. METHODS: Systematic searches of Medline and EMBASE. RESULTS: In longitudinal studies, 65% (95% CI 54-75%) of patients with complicated GERD and 70% (95% CI 57-83%) of patients with 'defined' GERD had persistent disease at follow-up, whereas 34% (95% CI 27-40%) with infrequent or mild reflux symptoms at baseline had persistent symptoms. Clinical trials of maintenance treatment for at least 6 months after healing of oesophagitis reported mean relapse rates of 75% (95% CI 68-82%) in patients taking placebo and 28% (95% CI 21-35%) in those taking proton pump inhibitors. Retrospective studies reported that 34-41% of individuals with GERD recalled experiencing their symptoms for >10 years. The prevalence of GERD is high (10-20%), whereas the incidence is low (4.5-19.6 cases per 1000 person-years), suggesting that GERD is likely to persist for at least 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with GERD have persistent reflux symptoms that merit management as a chronic disease; infrequent reflux symptoms are less likely to be chronic and may respond to different management strategies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".