Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise the evidence for an association between laryngomalacia (LM) and acid reflux through a systematic review of the existing literature. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and collected additional publications cited in bibliographies. REVIEW METHODS: Literature search by both authors with structured criteria to select studies evaluated for systematic review. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) guidelines were applied to assess study quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, representing 1295 neonates with LM, were included. Levels of evidence varied from CEBM level 2a (n = 1) to 4 (n = 23). Although reflux definitions were diverse, overall reflux prevalence in this group was 59% (pooled odds ratio [OR] of 4 controlled studies = 1.15, P = .67). Further evidence supporting an association between reflux and LM included the ubiquity of acid reflux using dual-probe pH monitoring in children with LM (2 studies; n = 84), the increased prevalence of reflux in severe as compared with mild LM (3 studies; n = 237; pooled OR = 9.86, P < .0001), case series and reports of LM improvement with antireflux therapy (6 studies; n = 275), and histological evidence of reflux-related laryngeal inflammation in children with LM (2 studies; n = 18). CONCLUSION: The literature shows a coexistence between acid reflux and LM, but the evidence for a causal association is limited. In view of the widespread use of antireflux treatment in LM, a randomized controlled trial of antireflux medication vs placebo appears justified.
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 | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".