Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many mathematical equations based on height have been developed to estimate the esophageal length (EL) in children. The aim of this study was to confirm whether the preexisting and most frequently used equation by Strobel et al is accurate in calculating the EL in our pediatric population. Our secondary goal was to evaluate whether a new formula could be developed using our nonsurgical and surgical populations' data for the correlation between patients' height and measured EL by esophageal manometry (EM). METHODS: From 2000 to 2009, 116 children between the ages of 3 and 18 years without previous esophageal surgery underwent EM (n = 31) at the Montreal Children's Hospital. During the same period, 55 EMs were performed on 34 children with a previous history of esophageal surgery. For both groups, we collected the following data: height, EL calculated by the Strobel formula, and EL measured by EM. RESULTS: The Strobel equation was inaccurate in predicting the EL. The calculated EL was 3.0 ± 0.32 cm longer than the EM measurements (P < 0.001). The height (H) of nonsurgical children was found to be highly predictive of the lower esophageal sphincter location (L), and the derived linear regression equation is L = 0.216 (H) + 7.13 [r² = 0.85]. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that the Strobel formula is not sufficiently accurate to predict EL in the pediatric population that is between 3 and 18 years old. A correlation exists between height and esophageal sphincter location position. If EM is unavailable, the use of a new mathematical equation like ours can be considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".