[Clinical aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease in elderly patients: results of a 5-year prospective study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the clinical manifestations and changes of non-erosive reflux disease, erosive reflux disease, and Barrett's esophagus (BE) in a cohort of elderly patients during a 5-year follow-up. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A continuous method was used to compare the clinical manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 950 patients aged 60 to 75 years and 453 patients aged 36 to 60 years. All the patients underwent clinical examination using the Mayo clinic questionnaire and fibroesophagogastroduodenoscopy. A prospective cohort study was performed in 950 patients aged 60 to 75 years for an average of 5 years. GERD was diagnosed on the basis of the Montreal Consensus guidelines (2006); the degree of esophageal mucosal injury was evaluated according to the Los-Angeles classification (1999). The diagnosis of BE was morphologically verified. RESULTS: The frequency of weekly heartburn was 10% higher in the mature-aged patients; but that of nocturnal heartburn, belching, and BE prevailed in the elderly patients. The 5-year prospective follow-up revealed a significant increase in the rate of erosive esophagitis and BE in the elderly patients with GERD. The risk factors of the latter were no maintenance therapy with proton pump inhibitors, as well as obesity and hiatal hernia. CONCLUSION: GERD shows clinical features and progression in the elderly patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".