MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985188882 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1566

Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

2006· review· en· W1985188882 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Moayyedi, Nicholas J. Talley, M. Brian Fennerty, Nimish Vakil

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalOrganic diseaseMEDLINEPopulationPeptic ulcerEndoscopyGastroenterologyClinical trialCINAHLDiseasePeptic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Upper gastrointestinal symptoms occur in 40% of the population. An accurate diagnosis would help rationalize investigation and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature of the accuracy of primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, or computer models in diagnosing organic dyspepsia. DATA SOURCES: A search of Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (December 2003), MEDLINE (1966-December 2003), EMBASE (1988-December 2003), and CINAHL (1982-December 2003) for studies that reported on cohorts of patients attending for endoscopy that had symptoms, clinical opinion, or both recorded before investigation. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that prospectively compared the diagnosis reached by a clinician, computer model, or both with results of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in adult patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently assessed studies (n = 79) for eligibility and abstracted data for estimating likelihood ratios (LRs) of clinical opinion, computer models, or both in diagnosing an organic cause for dyspepsia. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies were identified that evaluated 11 366 patients, with 4817 patients (42%) classified as having organic dyspepsia. The computer models performed similarly to the clinician; therefore, the 2 approaches were combined. The diagnosis reached by the clinician or computer model suggesting organic dyspepsia had an LR of 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-1.8), and a negative result decreased the likelihood of organic dyspepsia (LR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.55). A diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease performed similarly with an LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.6), but an evaluation that suggested the absence of peptic ulcer disease had an LR of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.38-0.53). A clinical history suggesting esophagitis had an LR of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.9-3.0) vs a negative history that had an LR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60). CONCLUSION: Neither clinical impression nor computer models that incorporated patient demographics, risk factors, history items, and symptoms adequately distinguished between organic and functional disease in patients referred for endoscopic evaluation of dyspepsia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations204
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207