The prescribing of acid suppressants prior to the endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus and oesophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic rise in incidences of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. It has been suggested that the introduction and use of acid suppression therapy may be a factor in the rising incidences of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This was a record linkage study, using a prescribing database and an endoscopy database. Patients who had undergone their first endoscopy during the period 1992-1995 and received the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus or oesophagitis were identified. The prescribing of acid suppressants was compared for the 3 years prior to endoscopy, between those with Barrett's oesophagus and those with oesophagitis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the Barrett's patients and the oesophagitis patients in the proportion that had been exposed to acid suppression therapy (53.4% vs. 51.7%, P=0.704). The mean number of days of prescribing among those who had been exposed to acid suppression therapy was higher in the Barrett's group (340.5 vs. 237.0 days, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Barrett's oesophagus have received more acid suppressant therapy prior to diagnosis. The reasons for this are not clear. However, 46.6% of Barrett's patients have not been exposed to acid suppressant therapy.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".