Congenital Esophageal Stenosis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A child with congenital esophageal stenosis (CES) demonstrates the need for accuracy in the diagnosis and management of this rare problem. Other etiologies of dysphagia must be looked into, but when the expected results are not realized CES should be considered. A range of diagnoses and diagnostic studies may help to get children with dysphagia the treatment that they need to resolve their symptoms. Résumé Un enfant avec une sténose congénitale de l'œsophage (CES) démontre la nécessité d'un diagnostic plus précis et fait discuter le traitement de ce problème rare. Les autres étiologies de dysphagie peuvent être discutées mais, quand le diagnostic n'est pas fait, le CES doit être discuté. L'ensemble des moyens diagnostiques doit aider les enfants avec une dysphagie à bénéficier du traitement adapté pour résoudre leurs symptômes. Resumen Los niños con estenosis esofágica congénita (CES) requieren un diagnóstico exacto y un tratamiento adecuado de este raro problema. Hay que pensar en la existencia de una CES tras considerar otras etiologías de la disfagia y cuando no se alcanzan los resultados esperados del tratamiento. Hay una serie de pruebas diagnósticas que pueden servir de ayuda para indicar el tratamiento adecuado de niños con disfagia. Zusammenfassung Angeborene Stenosen des Ösophagus sind außergewöhnlich selten und werden häufig verkannt. Aus diesem Grund wird der Fall eines 5 œ Jahre alten Mädchens vorgestellt mit einer lebenslangen Anamnese von Schluckbeschwerden. Das Kind litt unter einer angeborenen Ösophagusstenose. Bei der Thorakotomie stellte sich eine straffe, bindegewebige Membran heraus. Schlussfolgerung: Auch wenn angeborene Ösophagusstenosen sehr selten sind, sollte bei anhaltenden Schluckbeschwerden an dieses Krankheitsbild gedacht werden.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".