MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291379224 · doi:10.1155/2014/419641

Mucosal Bridge as a Cause of Dysphagia After Surgery for Esophageal Atresia

2014· article· en· W2291379224 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurence Chapuy, Martine Pomerleau, Pierre Perrault, Christophe Fauré

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaAtresiaAnastomosisSurgeryGeneral surgeryEtiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, CHU Ste-Justine, Montreal, Quebec Correspondence: Dr Christophe Faure, Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Hopital Sainte-Justine, 3175 Cote Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1C5. Telephone 514-345-4931 ext 2561, fax 514-345-4999, e-mail christophe.faure@umontreal.ca Received for publication May 16, 2014. Accepted June 16, 2014 CASE PRESENTATION Esophageal atresia (EA) is a congenital disorder that affects one in 2500 newborns (1). In the long-term follow-up of these patients, dysphagia is a frequent complication after EA repair. The authors describe three patients presenting with dysphagia after surgical repair of type C EA for whom a treatable cause was found. Two of these patients underwent surgical correction on the first day of life, which was complicated by an anastomotic leak. In the third patient, surgery was postponed to five months of life due to low birth weight and prematurity, rendering reanastomosis technically difficult. All three patients underwent a barium swallow due to persistent dysphagia at six, 13 and 15 years of age, respectively. Esophageal diverticulae were present in two patients, but none had esophageal strictures (Figure 1). Upper endoscopy revealed a mucosal bridge slightly above the anastomotic site (Figure 2). Two patients showed dramatic improvement of their dysphagia after resection of the mucosal bridge using argon plasma coagulation (Figure 3). The mucosal bridge was not excised in the third patient, whose dysphagia remained. DISCUSSION The etiology of these mucosal bridges is unclear, but may be a consequence of surgery, trauma from nasogastric tube placement (2) or gastroesophageal reflux disease (3). Alternatively, mucosal bridges may also be a consequence of inflammation (4) caused by chronic food stasis due to esophageal dysmotility, which was present in all three of our patients, as confirmed by manometric studies (5).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207