Lichen Planus Is an Uncommon Cause of Nonspecific Proximal Esophageal Inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Esophageal lichen planus (LP) has been described as a cause of nonspecific esophagitis that may cause dysphagia, but its incidence is unknown. We aimed to estimate the incidence of esophageal LP in a defined geographic region and describe the clinical characteristics of affected patients. METHODS: A histopathology database for a population of 1 million people was searched for all esophageal mucosal biopsy results over an 8-year period. Cases showing inflammation or abnormalities without a diagnosis after three or more biopsies were reviewed for findings of LP. RESULTS: Of 13,589 esophageal biopsies, only one received a diagnosis of LP. Seven patients (four male; mean age, 59 years; range, 39 to 76 years) were identified as having chronic dysphagia and nonspecific proximal esophagitis for which no diagnosis could be made. All patients had proximal inflammation, and six of seven had full-thickness lymphocytic infiltration. Elongation of the lamina propria papillae was noted in all patients, whereas six patients had parakeratosis and ballooning. Only one patient had findings potentially consistent with, but not sufficient for, a diagnosis of esophageal LP. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal LP appears to be extremely uncommon in this North American population, and esophageal biopsy alone is likely not sufficient to establish a diagnosis of LP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".