A Randomized Controlled Trial of Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Treatment of Patients With Chronic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: One-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized controlled trial conducted in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease compared optimized medical therapy using proton pump inhibitor (n = 52) with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (n = 52). Patients were monitored for 1 year. The primary end point was frequency of gastroesophageal reflux dis-ease symptoms. Surgical patients had improved symptoms, pH control, and overall quality of life health index after surgery at 1 year compared with the medical group. The overall gastroesophageal reflux disease symptom score at 1 year was unchanged in the medical patients, but improved in the surgical patients. Fourteen patients in the medical arm experienced symptom relapse requiring titration of the proton pump inhibitor dose, but 6 had satisfactory symptom remission. No surgical patients required additional treatment for symptom control. Patients controlled on long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease are excellent surgical candidates and should experience improved symptom control after surgery at 1 year.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".