The prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in a cohort of 1040 Canadian primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia undergoing prompt endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus in patients undergoing gastroscopy may be influenced by possible referral bias. AIM: To present the prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus from the the Canadian Adult Dyspepsia Empirical Therapy Prompt Endoscopy study and to explore potential risk factors for its presence. METHODS: Patients had not been on treatment for dyspepsia for 2-4 weeks prior to endoscopy, which was performed within 10 working days of presentation. RESULTS: Barrett's oesophagus was endoscopically suspected in 53 of 1040 cases (5%) and histologically confirmed by the presence of intestinal metaplasia in 25 (2.4%). The prevalence of biopsy-proven Barrett's oesophagus was 4% in patients with dominant reflux-like symptoms. Sixty-four percent with confirmed Barrett's oesophagus had dominant reflux-like symptoms compared with 37% without Barrett's oesophagus. Barrett's oesophagus was more common in patients >50 years of age; 68% of cases were males. The mean duration of symptoms was 10 years, yet 16% had symptoms of <1-year duration. Endoscopic reflux oesophagitis was present in 68% of confirmed Barrett's oesophagus patients. CONCLUSIONS: Barrett's oesophagus is confirmed on biopsy in about half of endoscopically suspected Barrett's oesophagus patients. Barrett's oesophagus is more common in males, in those with dominant reflux-like symptoms, and in patients with a longer symptom history.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".