The natural history of gastro‐oesophageal reflux symptoms in the community and its effects on survival: a longitudinal 10‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms (GERS) are common in the community. However, few studies have examined their long-term natural history, or impact on survival. AIM: To examine these issues in individuals recruited into a community-based screening programme for Helicobacter pylori in 1994. METHODS: Data on mortality and cause of death at 10 years were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Baseline demographic data, lifestyle factors, gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life were recorded at study entry. The effect of all these factors on persistent and new-onset GERS, and 10-year mortality, were examined using univariate and multivariate analysis, with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HR) with 99% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 3967 individuals providing complete GERS data at baseline and 10 years, 549 (13.8%) had GERS at baseline. Of these, 183 (33.3%) had persistent symptoms. Among 3418 individuals asymptomatic at baseline, approximately 0.8% per year developed new-onset GERS. No predictors of persistent GERS were identified. New-onset symptoms were associated with lower quality of life or presence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) at baseline, and higher body mass index (BMI) at 10 years. There were 8331 (99.1%) of 8407 subjects providing complete GERS data at baseline, 1289 (15.5%) of whom were symptomatic. Presence of GERS at baseline did not affect survival (HR: 0.84; 99% CI: 0.44-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms persisted in one-third of individuals, whilst new-onset gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms were associated with poor quality of life, irritable bowel syndrome and higher body mass index. Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms did not impact adversely on survival.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".