A Global, Evidence-Based Consensus on the Definition of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in the Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop an international consensus on the definition of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the pediatric population. METHODS: Using the Delphi process, a set of statements was developed and voted on by an international panel of eight pediatric gastroenterologists. Statements were based on systematic literature searches using Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Voting was conducted using a six-point scale, with consensus defined, a priori, as agreed by 75% of the group. The strength of each statement was assessed using the GRADE system. RESULTS: There were four rounds of voting. In the final vote, consensus was reached on 98% of the 59 statements. In this vote, 95% of the statements were accepted by seven of eight voters. Consensus items of particular note were: (i) GERD is present when reflux of gastric contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications, but this definition is complicated by unreliable reporting of symptoms in children under the age of approximately 8 years; (ii) histology has limited use in establishing or excluding a diagnosis of GERD; its primary role is to exclude other conditions; (iii) Barrett's esophagus should be defined as esophageal metaplasia that is intestinal metaplasia positive or negative; and (iv) extraesophageal conditions may be associated with GERD, but for most of these conditions causality remains to be established. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements that comprise the Definition of GERD in the Pediatric Population were developed through a rigorous process. These statements are intended to be used for the development of future clinical practice guidelines and as a basis for clinical trials.
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 | 0.334 | 0.316 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| 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".