Symptoms and Endoscopic Features at Barrett's Esophagus Diagnosis: Implications for Neoplastic Progression Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification of Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients based on clinical and endoscopic features may help to optimize surveillance practice for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) development. The aim of this study was to investigate patient symptoms and endoscopic features at index endoscopy and risk of neoplastic progression in a large population-based cohort of BE patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of hospital records relating to incident BE diagnosis was conducted in a subset of patients with specialized intestinal metaplasia from the Northern Ireland BE register. Patients were matched to the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry to identify progressors to EAC or esophageal high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Cox proportional hazards models were applied to evaluate the association between endoscopic features, symptoms, and neoplastic progression risk. RESULTS: During 27,997 person-years of follow-up, 128 of 3,148 BE patients progressed to develop HGD/EAC. Ulceration within the Barrett's segment, but not elsewhere in the esophagus, was associated with an increased risk of progression (hazard ratio (HR) 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-2.76). Long-segment BE carried a significant sevenfold increased risk of progression compared with short-segment BE; none of the latter group developed EAC during the study period. Conversely, the absence of reflux symptoms was associated with an increased risk of cancer progression (HR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.05-2.46). CONCLUSIONS: BE patients presenting with a long-segment BE or Barrett's ulcer have an increased risk of progressing to HGD/EAC and should be considered for more intense surveillance. The absence of reflux symptoms at BE diagnosis is not associated with a reduced risk of malignant progression, and may carry an increased risk of progression.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".