A debate on the roles of antireflux surgery and long term acid suppression in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Montreal definition, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a condition that develops when reflux of the stomach contents into the oesophagus causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.1 GORD is a chronic disorder which impacts health related quality of life (HR-QOL) and reduces work productivity.2,–,4 During the past two decades, the superiority of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) over other drugs (antacids, prokinetics and H2 receptor antagonists) has been established beyond doubt and PPIs are now considered as the mainstay of antireflux medical therapy.5 6 However, once healing of mucosal breaks and sufficient symptom relief have been achieved by initial therapy, the main goals of long term management are to maintain symptom control and prevent lesion recurrence, allowing a return to a nearly normal quality of life. Maintenance treatment with a PPI may be an option, offering high rates of symptom resolution and healing of oesophagitis.6 However, some patients are reluctant to take long term medication and may prefer to have antireflux surgery which has also be revolutionised by the development of the laparoscopic route. In this debate, we will discuss the advantages/inconvenience of both long term strategies—that is, drugs versus surgery. Our purpose is not to oppose treatments but rather to help the clinician and especially the primary care doctor who has the opportunity of making a major difference by the correct choice of treatment and investigations. ### There are several reasons to choose PPI long term strategy PPI therapy is indeed a simple and quick way of bringing about symptom relief for typical heartburn. When the patient presents with typical symptoms such as heartburn and/or regurgitation, the diagnosis does not require complex or invasive clinical investigation and is further confirmed by PPI efficacy. Then, continuous PPI maintenance can be considered as an option if the patient relapses after one or several …
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".