MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Infant Gastroesophageal Reflux (GER): Benign Infant Acid Reflux or just Plain Aerophagia?

2016· article· en· W2303883731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lawrence Kotlow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Health and Nutrition · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefluxMedicinePediatricsInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians are often asked to diagnose and treat infants with clinical signs of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) symptoms and in extreme cases gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Some infants are left to work out their pain, regurgitation and vomiting until they outgrow the symptoms while others may undergo expensive, invasive endoscopic procedures in the operating room under general anesthesia. Initial treatment is often for infants to be placed on prescription adult acid reflux medications, which have limited benefits [1]. Drugs prescribed include: H-2 blockers such as ranitidine (Zantac), a proton pump inhibitor such as omeprazole (Prilosec) or lansoprazole (Prevacid). TOTS may cause aerophagia, a condition where the infant’s latch onto the mother’s breast or bottle allows the infant to swallow excessive amounts of air into the stomach during feeding. This aerophagia may be responsible for symptoms mimicking GER or GERD [2]. When these infants are examined for symptoms of GER the differential diagnosis of tethered oral tissues (TOTS) may not be addressed [3]. Tethered oral tissues may involve ankyloglossia (tongue-tied), maxillary and /or mandibular frenum lip-ties and in some instances buccal frenum ties. These tethered oral tissues (TOTS) prevent the infant from achieving a good seal onto the breast and or bottle with the resulting ingestion of excessive amounts of air. Background: When assessing infants presenting with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, aerophagia secondary to tethered oral tissues (tongue-ties ,Lip-ties) should be considered in the differential diagnosis since the release of these tissues may eliminate the need for invasive gastrointestinal investigations and pharmacologic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux. Patient Pool: 340 infants ranging from 1 week to 3 months were referred for the evaluation and release of lingual and maxillary lips which were interfering with infant’s ability to achieve a good seal and latch onto the mother’s breast of infant bottle .The survey the parents completed indicated that 208 or 61% of the infants had signs of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) such as; vomiting, regurgitation, inability to sleep lying supine, fussiness, crying after nursing and morning congestion. Of the 208 infants 40% (83 infants) were or had been treated for GER with pharmacologic medications such as proton pump inhibitors or H2 blockers without any resolution of the symptoms. Findings: All of the infants presenting with these signs and symptoms underwent laser revisions of the tethered attachments. Upon completion of the procedure and at a 48 hour post-surgical follow-up discussion with the parents 93% (194 infants) of the infants showed immediate improvements and were able to breastfeed successfully without signs or symptoms of GER. Survey returned at the end of two weeks post-surgery had similar results Conclusion: Infants presenting with signs of GER should also be evaluated for restrictive tethered oral tissues (TOTS) such as ankyloglossia, lip and buccal ties. If they are present, strong consideration should be given to the release of these tissues as an initial approach. This may eliminate the need for pharmacologic treatment of GER.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Health and NutritionSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207