Characterization of Esophageal Motility Following Esophageal Atresia Repair Using High‐Resolution Esophageal Manometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal dysmotility, a considerable issue following esophageal atresia (EA) repair, has been reported but has not been precisely described and characterized. Using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM), we characterized the esophageal motility patterns in children with repaired EA and compared these patterns of dysmotility with symptomatology. METHODS: HREM was performed as an outpatient procedure in patients with repaired EA. The tracings were analyzed using the software provided by the company and were then reviewed visually. Charts were reviewed for medical/surgical histories and symptoms were assessed by a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty patients (25 boys, 15 girls) with a median age of 8 years (11 months-18 years) underwent an HREM. Thirty-five patients had type C EA and 5 had type A EA. Only 7 patients were asymptomatic at the time of the examination. HREM results were abnormal in all of the patients. Three different esophageal motility patterns were derived from HREM tracing analysis: aperistalsis (15 patients, 38%), pressurization (6 patients, 15%), and distal contractions (19 patients, 47%). Distal contractions pattern was found exclusively in type C EA. Dysphagia was encountered in the 3 groups. Gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms predominated in the aperistalsis group. CONCLUSIONS: HREM improves our understanding and allows precise characterization of esophageal dysmotility in patients who have undergone EA repair.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".