[Acid-sensitive esophagus: natural history and effect on the quality of life. Comparison with gastroesophageal reflux].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The acid hypersensitive esophagus (AHE) is characterized by a normal esophageal acid exposure but a significant association between symptoms and reflux episodes. The natural history of AHE remains poorly known. We therefore conducted a follow-up study to compare the initial presentation and natural history of AHE and classical GERD. Quality of life (QOL) was also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients referred to our laboratory for 24-hour pH-monitoring (between 1991 and 1996) were compared. Group 1 consisted of 127 consecutive patients with AHE. Group 2 consisted of 101 patients with GERD. All patients were invited by mail to fill-in two questionnaires, the first concerning clinical course and therapeutic needs and the second QOL (questionnaire Reflux-Qual). Finally 62% and 59% of group 1 and 2 respectively did respond to both questionnaires. The corresponding follow-up periods were 4.1 and 4.3 years, respectively. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ at initial presentation with regard to age, sex, symptoms prevalence and severity of esophagitis (80% of group 1 and 75% of group 2 were endoscopy-negative patients). At an average follow-up of 4 years symptoms persisted in 80% and 71% of patients respectively. Seventy five per cent of patients in both groups continued to take antireflux drugs. QOL scores were similarly reduced in both groups (71 +/- 26 vs 70 +/- 27). CONCLUSIONS: The initial presentation and clinical outcome of AHE and GERD are similar. QOL is notably impaired and the majority of patients continue to receive antireflux medications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".