Pediatric Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry: Utility of a Standardized Protocol and Size-Adjusted Pressure Topography Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Esophageal high-resolution manometry (EHRM) has evolved rapidly from a research tool to a routine investigation in adult clinical practice. This study proposes and evaluates a standardized EHRM protocol for use in pediatric clinical practice. METHODS: Thirty pediatric patients underwent unsedated EHRM. Indications for EHRM were dysphagia, feeding difficulty, or pre-fundoplication assessment. Two 20-channel customized water-perfused silicone catheters, with an outside diameter of 3.8 mm (MuiScientific, Ontario, CA), were used. The catheters had one distal gastric channel, five channels 0.5 cm apart for the e-sleeve, and 14 proximal channels either 1 cm (for children <5 years) or 2 cm apart (for children >5 years). Single wet swallows, multiple rapid swallows (MRS), and solid swallows were systematically studied. RESULTS: The median age was 10 years (range 6 months-15 years). The esophageal motor findings were normal peristalsis (n=15), peristaltic dysfunction (n=12), achalasia (n=3), and spasm on consumption of solid food (n=2). The distal contractile integral adjusted for esophageal length (DCIa) of patients with peristaltic dysfunction was significantly lower than that of patients without peristaltic dysfunction (P<0.001). On MRS, aperistalsis with lack of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) relaxation was observed in patients with achalasia, and aperistalsis with complete EGJ relaxation was observed in patients with severe peristaltic dysfunction. On consumption of solid food, esophageal spasm associated with bolus impaction was observed in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides objective information with regard to topography pressure parameters in esophageal motility disorders of childhood while using a standardized EHRM protocol. The new DCIa variable may be useful for the assessment of patients with peristaltic dysfunction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".