Review article: the risks of oesophageal acid exposure ‐ from minimal mucosal changes to malignancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease is very common and presents with a spectrum of symptoms with or without oesophageal damage. Gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease has an adverse impact on quality of life, especially in those with nocturnal symptoms. Prolonged exposure of the oesophageal mucosa to acidic gastric contents with pepsin and bile increases the risk of oesophageal mucosal injury. The frequency and severity of symptoms and oesophagitis correlate with the frequency, severity and duration of acid exposure, particularly at night‐time. This study reviews the mechanisms and evidence for acid‐induced symptoms and oesophageal injury, from superficial mucosal injury to Barrett's oesophagus and the long‐term risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Optimizing the choice and dose regimen of proton‐pump inhibitor is essential for treating gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease, and nocturnal acid control is important in preventing complicated gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".