Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children Needing Emergency Endoscopy for Foreign Body and Food Bolus Impaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children presenting with esophageal foreign body (FB)/food bolus impaction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review for all children who underwent endoscopic esophageal FB extraction at the Stollery Children's Hospital between January 2005 and December 2008 was performed. The prevalence of EoE and characteristics of children who had EoE were documented. RESULTS: A total of 140 children (mean age, 4.98 [SD, 4] years; range, 0.3-16.9 years; 81 boys) had esophageal FB/food impaction and needed endoscopic removal over the study period. Eleven children (mean age, 9.38 [SD, 5.35] years; range, 1.9-16.2 years; 8 boys) were diagnosed with EoE (8%). Seven (39%) of 18 children with food impaction were diagnosed with EoE. Four (3%) of 122 children with esophageal foreign bodies other than food had EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable number of children with esophageal FB/food bolus impaction may have EoE. Routine sampling of esophageal mucosa at different levels during esophageal FB extraction may be considered. Well-designed prospective studies with multiple-level esophageal biopsies taken from all children with FB/food impaction are needed to confirm our results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".