Pathological validity of esophageal endoscopy. How real is what we see? Myth or reality?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize the spectrum of esophageal pathology at a provincial tertiary care hospital and to evaluate these findings with their respective endoscopic diagnoses. The pathology slides of 183 esophageal biopsies for the year 2000 were reviewed and classified as esophagitis, intestinal metaplasia, low or high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or normal. One hundred and fifteen cases (63%) had complete concordant results with respective endoscopic reports. Sixty-eight cases (37%) had discordant results with inaccurate recognition of Barrett's esophagus in 9% and of esophagitis with a false positive in 16% and false negative in 7%. Although esophagoscopy remains a primary investigative tool in gastroesophageal diseases, evaluation of erythema, inflammation and esophagitis can be misleading. Pathologically confirmed esophagitis can occur in a 'normal' esophagus. Accurate endoscopic recognition of short-segment Barrett's remains a diagnostic challenge.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".