Safety of medication options for treating pediatric esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The management of gastro-esophageal reflux and esophagitis in infants and children is challenging, and there are currently no clear practice guidelines. Given a paucity of evidence in the treatment of pediatric esophagitis, there are concerns over both the efficacy and safety of proton-pump inhibitors, histamine type 2 receptor antagonists, and prokinetics. AREAS COVERED: Comprehensive data from randomized-controlled trials, meta-analyses and observational studies have helped to illustrate the efficacy and safety of various pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments in pediatric esophagitis. We review the evidence on the risks of antacid therapy including bone mineral density, respiratory infections and enteric infections including necrotizing enterocolitis. EXPERT OPINION: Evidence pertaining to the safety of proton-pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists in pediatric populations is lacking. Largely based on small observational and randomized controlled trials, it does appear both antacids pose an increased risk of respiratory and enteric infections, which can occur even with a short course of treatment. The benefits of treatment, especially in pediatric esophagitis, must be weighed against the potential risks. More large-scale studies are needed to better quantify short-term and long-term risks of treatment. Anti-secretory medications, mostly proton pump inhibitors, have substantially improved the management of pediatric esophagitis. Nevertheless, because of possible infectious safety concerns, their use must be restricted to validated indications only.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".