MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975409074 · doi:10.14740/gr629w

Evaluation of the Splash Time Test as a Bedside Test for Hiatal Hernia

2014· article· en· W1975409074 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas Akesson Lindow, Thomas Franzén

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplashMedicineHiatal herniaRegurgitation (circulation)SwallowingEsophagusDysphagiaBolus (digestion)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernias may present with heartburn, acid regurgitation, dysphagia, chest pain, pulmonary symptoms and globus jugularis. Due to the heterogeneous presentation, there is a need for a simple diagnostic instrument when hiatal hernia is suspected. Hiatal hernia may impair esophageal bolus transportation. The splash time test is a rough measurement of esophageal bolus transportation, where time is measured from the start of swallowing a liquid bolus to the appearance of a "splashing" sound at xiphoid level. We aimed to test the hypothesis that the splash time test is prolonged in patients with hiatal hernia compared to normal subjects. METHODS: In 30 patients with hiatal hernia, time was measured from swallow to splash using audiosignal recording. Thirty healthy subjects were used as controls. RESULTS: Median time from swallow to splash was 4.9 seconds in the patient group and 4.4 seconds in the control group. Five patients, but none of the controls, performed swallows with absence of splash. Using only absence of splash as a pathological result, sensitivity was 23% and specificity was 100%. CONCLUSION: The splash time test is not a sensitive instrument in diagnosing hiatal hernias. The absence of splash, however, seems to be a specific marker of hiatal hernia. Further research is needed regarding which other conditions besides hiatal hernia may cause absence of splash. The splash time test can be replaced by the even simpler "splash test".

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207