Injection of botulinum toxin before pneumatic dilatation in achalasia treatment: a randomized‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pneumatic dilatation is the first line therapy in achalasia, but half of patients relapse within 5 years of therapy and require further dilatations. AIM: To assess whether botulinum toxin injection before pneumatic dilatation is superior to pneumatic dilatation alone in achalasia patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed achalasia patients were randomly assigned to receive botulinum toxin 1 month before pneumatic dilatation (botulinum toxin-pneumatic dilatation group: 27 patients with median age of 38) or to undergo pneumatic dilatation alone (pneumatic dilatation group: 27 patients with median age of 30). Response to therapy was assessed by clinical and objective methods at various intervals. RESULTS: One-year remission rate of patients in botulinum toxin-pneumatic dilatation group was 77% compared with 62% in pneumatic dilatation group (P = 0.1). In pneumatic dilatation group, the oesophageal barium volume significantly (P < 0.001) decreased at 1 month, but this reduction did not persist over 1-year follow-up. Botulinum toxin-pneumatic dilatation group showed a significant (P < 0.001) reduction in barium volume at the various times intervals post-treatment. In the botulinum toxin-pneumatic dilatation group, 10/11 (91%) patients over 40 were in remission at 1 year, comparing with only five of nine (55%) cases in pneumatic dilatation group (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Injection of botulinum toxin before pneumatic dilatation does not significantly enhance the efficacy of pneumatic dilatation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".