Postprandial bloating after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and possible contributing factors to postprandial bloating in patients having chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) before and after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Five hundred and seventy-eight patients with proven GERD. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom severity scores for postprandial bloating and dysphagia, esophageal motility and 24-hour pH measurement before and at 6 months, 2 years and 5 years after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. RESULTS: Of the 598 patients, 436 (73%) reported some postprandial bloating before the procedure. The symptom score for bloating significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the lower esophageal sphincter basal pressures or 24-hour pH scores between those who reported improvement or worsening of their postprandial bloating. At 6 months after surgery, 54% of patients experienced postprandial bloating; of these, 49% reported improvement, 21% reported worsening and 30% reported no change in bloating symptoms compared with the preoperative state. Of the patients who reported worsening of postprandial bloating 6 months after surgery, 86 were reassessed 2 years after surgery and 71% reported improvement of this symptom over this time interval. CONCLUSIONS: Bloating is a common symptom in patients who suffer from chronic GERD. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication lessens the severity of this symptom in most patients. In a small subgroup of patients, antireflux surgery may exacerbate the bloating, but this improves over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".