Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children: Symptoms, Histology and pH Probe Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To review the authors' experience with eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2001, the authors identified 12 patients with eosinophilic esophagitis defined on histologic criteria (> or = 20 eosinophils per high-power field in the distal esophageal epithelium). The authors reviewed medical records for details of clinical presentation; laboratory data; radiologic, endoscopic, and histologic findings; and the results of continuous esophageal pH probe monitoring. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of the patients were male. The median age at presentation was 10.8 years (range, 1-17 years). Commonly reported symptoms were dysphagia with solid food (66%), epigastric pain (42%), food impaction (50%), and vomiting (8%). Food allergy was reported in 50% and asthma in 33%. Peripheral eosinophilia (> 700/mm3) was found in 42%. Upper gastrointestinal series performed in eight patients, showed esophageal luminal narrowing in three. Computed tomography, performed in two patients, revealed thickening of the esophageal wall. Esophageal pH probe monitoring, performed in nine patients, revealed no abnormal acid reflux. All of the monitored patients had episodic alkalinization of the esophagus. Upper endoscopic analysis revealed white specks on the esophageal mucosa in 42%, esophageal narrowing in 33%, esophageal rings in 25%, and esophageal furrowing in 8%. The mean eosinophils per high-power field was 65 (range, 20-200). Histologic characteristics included juxtaluminar (33%) and peripapillary clusters of eosinophils (33%), increased papillary height (50%), and basal cell hyperplasia (34%). CONCLUSION: Solid food dysphagia was the most common feature of eosinophilic esophagitis in our patients. Alkalinization of the esophagus was found in all nine pH probe recordings of eosinophilic esophagitis patients and may represent a previously unreported characteristic of the condition.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".