High-Resolution Manometry Correlates of Ineffective Esophageal Motility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are currently no criteria for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and ineffective swallow (IES) in esophageal pressure topography (EPT). Our aims were to use high-resolution manometry metrics to define IEM within the Chicago Classification and to determine the distal contractile integral (DCI) threshold for IES. METHODS: The EPT of 150 patients with either dysphagia or reflux symptoms were reviewed. Peristaltic function in EPT was defined by the Chicago Classification; the corresponding conventional line tracing (CLT) were reviewed separately. Generalized linear mixed models were used to find thresholds for DCI corresponding to traditionally determined IES and failed swallows. An external validation sample was used to confirm these thresholds. RESULTS: In terms of swallow subtypes, IES in CLT were a mixture of normal, weak, and failed peristalsis in EPT. A DCI of 450 mm Hg-s-cm was determined to be optimal in predicting IES. In the validation sample, the threshold of 450 mm Hg-s-cm showed strong agreement with CLT determination of IES (positive percent agreement 83%, negative percent agreement 90%). The patient diagnostic level agreement between CLT and EPT was good (78.6% positive percent agreement and 63.9% negative percent agreement), with negative agreement increasing to 92.0% if proximal breaks were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The manometric correlate of IEM in EPT is a mixture of failed swallows and weak swallows with breaks in the middle/distal troughs. A DCI value <450 mm Hg-s-cm can be used to predict IES previously defined in CLT. IEM can be defined by >5 swallows with weak/failed peristalsis or with a DCI <450 mm Hg-s-cm.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".