Esophageal Contractions After Wet and Dry Swallows in Patients With Esophagitis, Chagas' Disease and Idiopathic Achalasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In normal subjects the distal esophageal response to dry swallows differs from that of wet swallows. Our aim in this investigation was to compare the esophageal contractions of the proximal and distal esophageal body to wet and dry swallows. METHODS: We studied the esophageal contractions of eight patients with idiopathic achalasia, 37 patients with Chagas' disease, 28 patients with esophagitis, and 31 normal volunteers using manometric examination with continuous perfusion. The esophageal contractions were measured at 2 cm (proximal) and 22 cm (distal) from the upper esophageal sphincter. Five swallows of a 5 ml bolus of water alternated with 5 dry swallows were performed. RESULTS: In the proximal esophagus there was no difference between wet and dry swallows. In patients with esophagitis and volunteers the contractions in the distal esophagus had greater amplitude with wet swallows than with dry swallows. Contraction amplitude was lower than the amplitude of the other groups, in both the proximal and distal esophageal body in achalasia, and in distal esophageal body in Chagas' disease. The interval between the upstroke of contractions in the proximal and distal esophageal body was longer in volunteers and patients with esophagitis than in patients with Chagas' disease and achalasia. CONCLUSIONS: Wet swallows cause higher amplitude of contraction in distal esophagus than dry swallows, which is not seen in diseases with impairment of esophageal innervation (achalasia and Chagas' disease). In the proximal esophagus there is no difference in contractions caused by wet or dry swallows.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".