Esophageal Dilation in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Effectiveness, Safety, and Impact on the Underlying Inflammation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Esophageal dilation often leads to long-lasting relief of dysphagia in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study was to define the effectiveness, safety, and patient acceptance of esophageal dilation in EoE. In addition, we examined the influence of dilation on the underlying esophageal inflammation. METHODS: Two databases including 681 EoE patients were reviewed. Cohort 1 consisted of patients treated with dilation alone, whereas cohort 2 included patients treated with a combination of dilation and antieosinophilic medication. Patients from cohort 1 underwent a prospective histological reexamination and an evaluation using a questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 207 EoE patients were treated with esophageal dilation, 63 in cohort 1 and 144 in cohort 2. Dilation led to a significant increase in esophageal diameter and to an improvement in dysphagia in both the cohorts (P<0.001). After dilation, dysphagia recurred after 23+/-22 months in cohort 1 and 20+/-14 months in cohort 2. No esophageal perforation or major bleeding occurred. Among the patients surveyed, 74% reported retrosternal pain after dilation; however, all were agreeable to repeated dilation if required. Eosinophil peak infiltration, eosinophil load, and EoE-associated histological signs were not significantly affected by esophageal dilation. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dilation is highly effective in providing long-lasting symptom relief and can be performed safely with a high degree of patient acceptance. However, dilation is associated with postprocedural pain in most patients and does not influence the underlying inflammatory process. Symptom improvement despite persistence of inflammation suggests that tissue remodeling contributes substantially to symptom generation in EoE.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it