Esophageal Dysmotility in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients After Ingestion of Liquids With Different Viscosities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing esophageal motility in chronic renal failure (CRF) patients had no consistency in their findings. These studies evaluated esophageal contractility in response to dry/water swallows. Our aim was to reassess esophageal motility in CRF patients to better define its abnormalities. To unmask minor defects not seen in conventional dry/water manometry we also evaluated esophageal contractility in response to a highly viscous substance. METHODS: Fifteen controls and nine asymptomatic CRF patients underwent esophageal manometry with dry swallows, swallows of 5 mL of water (1 centipoise) and 5 mL of sugar cane syrup (24500 centipoise). CRF patients were compared with controls for esophageal motility parameters, considering each type of swallow (dry/water/syrup). RESULTS: CRF patients had: tendency for higher lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure (P = 0.09); shorter LES relaxation duration after dry/water/syrup swallows (P = 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0001, respectively); higher amplitude of proximal contractions after dry/water/syrup swallows (P = 0.008, P = 0.01, P = 0.04); tendency for longer duration of distal contractions after dry/water/syrup swallows (P = 0.07, P = 0.04, P = 0.09); lower velocity of distal contractions after dry/water/syrup swallows (P = 0.006, P = 0.09, P = 0.02); and higher incidence of multi-peaked contractions after dry/water/syrup swallows (P = 0.03, P = 0.0001, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal motility dysfunction can be a sub-clinical manifestation in CRF patients. Data also showed that swallows of a highly viscous liquid did not help to detect minor esophageal dysmotility in these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".