The role of acid suppression in patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease: the effect of treatment with esomeprazole or omeprazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease have reflux symptoms, mainly heartburn, but not mucosal breaks characteristic of erosive oesophagitis. Standard-dose proton pump inhibitors can provide symptom relief in endoscopy-negative reflux disease but the effect of greater acid suppression has not been studied. AIM: To test the hypothesis that esomeprazole produces heartburn resolution in a greater proportion of patients with ENRD than omeprazole. METHODS: Three multi-centre randomized, controlled, double-blind, 4-week acute treatment studies were conducted in endoscopy-negative reflux disease patients. In study A (n = 1282), patients received either esomeprazole 40 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg daily; in studies B (n = 693) and C (n = 670) patients received either esomeprazole 40 mg or omeprazole 20 mg (B), and esomeprazole 20 mg or omeprazole 20 mg (C), respectively. RESULTS: Resolution of heartburn at 4 weeks (no heartburn symptoms during the last 7 days) was achieved in similar proportions of patients in each treatment arm in study A (esomeprazole 40 mg, 56.7%; esomeprazole 20 mg, 60.5%; omeprazole 20 mg, 58.1%), study B (esomeprazole 40 mg, 70.3%; omeprazole 20 mg, 67.9%) and study C (esomeprazole 20 mg, 61.9%; omeprazole 20 mg, 59.6%). There were no significant differences between treatment groups within each study. CONCLUSIONS: More than 60% of endoscopy-negative reflux disease patients reported heartburn resolution but, after 4 weeks of therapy, these proportions did not differ significantly between treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".