Balloon Dilation for Achalasia of the Cardia: Experience in 76 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report our experience with balloon dilation for achalasia of the cardia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-six patients (mean age, 51 years) underwent balloon dilation with radiologic guidance. A total of 110 procedures were performed from April 1994 to April 2000. Diagnosis of achalasia was established with clinical, radiologic, and manometric data. Dysphagia was a presenting symptom in most patients (90%), regurgitation was present in 39%, retrosternal pain in 22%, and weight loss in 12%. The dilations were performed in a progressive manner starting with a 15-mm-diameter balloon and progressing to 20-, 30-, and 40-mm balloons, as required. Follow-up data were collected retrospectively from patient notes and telephone interviews with the patients and/or their local doctors (mean follow-up, 26 months). RESULTS: There were no cases of esophageal perforation; 89% (98 of 110) of dilations were considered to be successful, with the patients having restoration of normal or near-normal swallowing (excellent or good initial responses). Fifty-two patients required a single dilation; 22 patients, between two and four dilations; and two patients, five dilations. CONCLUSION: Balloon dilation with fluoroscopic guidance is a safe and successful treatment for achalasia of the cardia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".