Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status as Risk Factors for Esophagitis and Barrett's Esophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus is thought to be a disease occurring predominantly in White Caucasian males of higher socioeconomic status. There are no published studies simultaneously examining risk of Barrett's esophagus according to ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status within a single data set. The authors conducted a retrospective case-control analysis within a cross-sectional study to determine risk of Barrett's esophagus in relation to sociodemographic variables in a large United Kingdom population. All patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at two clinical centers between January 2000 and January 2003 were evaluated. Data on ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and the presence of Barrett's esophagus and esophagitis at endoscopy were collected. A total of 20,310 patients were analyzed. Barrett's esophagus was more common in White Caucasians (401/14,095 (2.8%)) than in South Asians (16/5,190 (0.3%)) (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=6.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.56, 10.22), as was esophagitis (2,500/14,095 (17.7%) vs. 557/5,190 (10.7%); adjusted OR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.97). Patients with Barrett's esophagus were also more likely to be male (adjusted OR=2.70, 95% CI: 2.18, 3.35) and of higher socioeconomic status (adjusted OR=1.58, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.15 (top tertile vs. bottom tertile)). White Caucasian ethnicity, male gender, and higher socioeconomic status are independent risk factors for Barrett's esophagus.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".