MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974655345 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-963633

Die Montreal-Definition und -Klassifikation der gastroösophagealen Refluxkrankheit: Ein globales evidenzbasiertes Konsensus-Papier

2007· article· de· W1974655345 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2007
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: A world-wide recognised and accepted definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) would be highly desirable for research and clinical practice. The purpose of this project was to develop such a generally accepted definition and classification that could be used equally by patients, physicians, and supervisory bodies. METHODS: In order to ensure a consensus among the participating experts a modified delphi process with a step-wise selection modality was employed. For this the working group of five persons formulated a series of statements on the basis of a systematic search of the literature using three databases (Embase, Cochrane-Study register, Medline). Then these statements were developed further for two years, revised and finally passed as consensus. The consensus group consisted of 44 experts from 18 countries. Each key vote was held on the basis of a six-point scale. A "consensus" was considered to have been reached when two-thirds of the participants voted in favour of the respective statement. RESULTS: The level of agreement between the experts increased in the course of the multistep decision process, in the individual voting steps requiring at least two-thirds of the participants, the results were at first 86%, then 88% through to 94% and finally 100% in favour of the chosen statement. In the final voting, 94% of the final 51 statements were accepted by 90% of the consensus group. 90% of all statements were accepted unanimously or with only minor reservations. GERD was defined as a disease that is associated with troublesome symptoms and/or complications on account of reflux of stomach contents into the esophagus. The complaints are divided into esophageal and extra-esophageal syndromes. Among the novel aspects of this definition are the patient-orientated approach that is independent of endoscopic findings, the classification of the ailment into independent syndromes as well as the consideration of laryngitis, cough, asthma and dental problems as possible GERD syndromes. Furthermore, a new definition of suspected or demonstrated Barrett's esophagus is proposed. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of country-specific differences in terminology, language, prevalence and manifestations of this disease, evidence-based, world-wide valid consensus definitions are possible. A global consensus definition of GERD will simplify disease management, make mutual research possible and help in the design of generally valid studies. This will not only help the patient but also the physician and supervisory bodies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it