Endoscopic, deep mural implantation of enteryx for the treatment of GERD: 6-month follow-up of a multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This prospective, multicenter, single-arm study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the endoscopic implantation of Enteryx, a biocompatible, non-biodegradable liquid polymer for the treatment of GERD. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with heartburn symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use were enrolled. Inclusion requirements were HRQL score < or = 11 on PPI and > or = 20 off PPI, and 24-hour PH probe with > or = 5% total time at PH < or = 4. Patients with a hiatus hernia > 3 cm, grade 3 or 4 esophagitis, or esophageal motility disorder were excluded. Using a 4-mm needle tipped catheter during standard endoscopy, implants were made in 3-4 quadrants deep into the wall of the cardia. Use of PPI medications, pH-metry, manometry, GERD symptoms, and patient quality of life were assessed over a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: At 6 months, PPI use was eliminated in 74% and reduced by > 50% in 10% of patients. The median HRQL score improved from 24.0 pre-implant (baseline off PPIs) to 4.0 at 6 months (p < 0.001). Mean total esophageal acid exposure time was 9.5% pretherapy and 6.7% at 6 months (p < 0.001). Mean LES length increased from 2.0 cm at baseline to 3.0 cm posttherapy (p = 0.003). There were no clinically serious adverse events. Transient mild-to-moderate chest pain commonly occurred after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic implantation of Enteryx is a safe and effective therapy for eliminating or decreasing the need for PPI medications, improving GERD symptoms and patient quality of life, and decreasing esophageal acid exposure among patients suffering from GERD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".