The Evaluation of Oesophageal Function in Patients with Different Types of Oesophageal Metaplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the oesophageal function in patients with different types of oesophageal metaplasia and in cases with dysplasia on the basis of the Montreal definition of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 270 consecutive patients [M/F 151/119, mean age 54.2 years (19-84)] with endoscopic and histological evidence of oesophageal metaplasia were prospectively studied: patients with specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM, n = 109) and patients without SIM (n = 161). Patients with SIM were subdivided into a dysplasia-positive (n = 34) and a dysplasia-negative (n = 75) group. All patients underwent reflux symptom analysis, oesophageal manometry, and simultaneous 24-hour pH and biliary reflux monitoring. RESULTS: Patients with SIM were significantly older and had a significantly higher body mass index than patients without SIM. A significant male predominance was observed in patients with SIM and dysplasia compared to the dysplasia-negative group. The clinical symptom spectrum and the prevalence of erosive oesophageal lesions were similar in all groups. Patients with SIM had longer metaplastic segments, which was further increased in the dysplasia-positive group. During oesophageal manometry, pH and biliary reflux monitoring, patients with SIM had more severe alterations than patients without SIM, and these were further increased in patients with SIM and dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SIM had more severe oesophageal function abnormalities than those with other types of oesophageal metaplasia (e.g. gastric). The oesophageal function was further impaired if dysplasia was present in the metaplastic mucosa.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".