Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Current Aspects of a Recently Recognized Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic clinicopathological entity characterized by large numbers of intraepithelial eosinophils infiltrating the esophageal mucosa. The inflammation leads to alterations in the caliber and the motility of the organ, which determines esophageal symptoms, especially dysphagia and frequent food impaction. Firstly described in 1978, EoE represents today an increasingly recognized disease, with cases coming from all developed countries and rising epidemiology. The origin of EoE has been related to allergy to food components or inhalants, and a number of studies support a Th2-type reaction in the origin of the disease. Thus, several treatment strategies based on controlling the exposition to triggering allergens or therapies using anti-allergic drugs have demonstrated efficacy in EoE. Since EoE frequently presents with esophageal stenosis, endoscopic dilation has been also used in treating these patients, but a high risk of complications has been documented. However, single treatment strategies have not been compared to a placebo group in most of studies, and we do not know the long-term consequences of eosinophilic inflammation, esophageal fibrous remodeling or its possible modifications using different therapies. Furthermore, we lack of a common accepted therapeutic end-point to assess the efficacy of the treatment: from mere resolution of symptoms to full control of esophageal inflammation. This article summarizes the current knowledge about the epidemiology, origin and pathogenesis of the disease, and discuses several practical questions, especially those related to how the affected patients should be treated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".