Endoscopic Assessment of Children with Esophageal Atresia: Lack of Relationship of Esophagitis and Esophageal Metaplasia to Symptomatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late complications of esophageal atresia (EA), particularly esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus, are increasingly being recognized. With the exception of patients with dysphagia associated with esophageal stricture, it is unknown whether patient symptomatology can predict endoscopic findings. METHODS: Data regarding the digestive symptoms of patients who were referred to the EA multidisciplinary clinic from October 2005 to October 2008, and underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic evaluation, were systematically collected. Macroscopic and histological findings were analyzed. Endoscopy was considered normal if no esophagitis, intestinal metaplasia or gastric metaplasia (GM) was discerned. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent endoscopy. Eighteen had dysphagia related to an esophageal stricture needing dilation and were subsequently excluded from the analysis. Forty-five patients (26 girls) with a median age of 7.3 years (range 0.4 to 17.9 years) were evaluated. Twenty-six patients (58%) were normal at endoscopy, 14 patients (31%) had esophagitis and 16 patients (36%) had GM. No intestinal metaplasia or adenocarcinoma was detected. Six patients with abnormal endoscopy results were asymptomatic. No correlation between digestive symptoms and endoscopy results was found. CONCLUSION: The present cross-sectional study showed that symptomatology was not predictive of abnormal endoscopy in EA patients. Esophagitis or GM may be discovered, even in the absence of symptoms, suggesting that physicians cannot rely solely on symptomatology to accurately evaluate the extent of these esophageal complications in this population.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".