Refluks krtaniowo-gardłowy (LPR) u pacjentów z przewlekłą chrypką
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2006 The Global Consensus Group in Montreal pointed out that chronic laryngitis is highly associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the frequency of LPR in a selected group of patients with chronic hoarseness. We were also interested in assessment of the relationship between Reflux Symptoms Index (RSI) scores, Ryan scores from the pharyngeal pH monitoring and the morphological changes in the larynx according to Reflux Findings Score (RFS). In addition, we wanted to assess the frequency of various clinical symptoms included in the RSI questionnaire among patients with LPR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 patients from an outpatient ENT clinic with chronic hoarseness and RSI ≥ 13. All subjects underwent pharyngeal pH monitoring with the Dx-pH System Restech ™ and laryngoscopy. RESULTS: Among 42 patients with chronic hoarseness, LPR was confirmed in 35 patients (83.33%). In 7 subjects pharyngeal pH monitoring was normal. Among all patients with confirmed LPR, only 5 out of 8 elements of RFS laryngoscopic changes were observed. The most frequent inflammatory changes noticed included erythema of the arytenoids and interarytenoid regions (posterior laryngitis). These findings were found in 30 out of 35 patients with LPR. Median value of RFS in patients with LPR was 4.45, which is lower than the cut off value of 7 necessary for recognition of LPR. There is statistically significant positive correlation between Ryan scores and the RFS scale results (correlation coefficient 0.91, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngeal pH monitoring confirmed LPR in 83.33% selected group of patients with chronic hoarseness and RSI ≥ 13. Isolated erythema of arytenoid and interarytenoid region was the most frequent inflammatory abnormality found in the larynx. RFS values below 7 do not exclude the diagnosis of LPR. We can use RFS scales as a prognostic test of severity of LPR - due to statistically significant positive correlation between Ryan score and RFS values. The use of RSI scale revealed that the most frequent symptom among patient with LPR was throat clearing followed by hoarseness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".