The nonerosive reflux disease???gastroesophageal reflux disease controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyse the concept of nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), examining its evolving definition and its relationship to reflux disease and functional gastrointestinal disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: The advent of the Montreal definition of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the Rome III definition of functional upper gastrointestinal disorders has refined the concept of NERD. The high prevalence of GERD symptoms and the strong overlap between GERD and irritable bowel syndrome is due to the influence of NERD. Subtle differences exist between patterns of acid exposure in NERD and erosive disease on pH testing. Symptom generation in NERD may be influenced by altered mucosal permeability. Improvements in endoscopic technology demonstrate esophageal mucosal changes in NERD which are not seen in controls. There is a general acknowledgement that the inferior symptomatic response to acid suppression reported in NERD is attributable, at least in part, to contamination of study populations by patients with functional heartburn. SUMMARY: NERD is common and its definition continues to evolve. For the present, however, this should be considered to be heartburn with and without regurgitation due to gastroesophageal reflux in the absence of esophageal mucosal erosions. Future studies examining treatment response of GERD subgroups must exclude functional heartburn if NERD is to be properly understood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".