Intestinal and Gastric Permeability in Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Reflux Esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergic and immune-mediated entity that leads to a characteristic inflammation of esophageal mucosa. Patients complain of dysphagia and reflux-like symptoms. As many as 80% of patients with EoE may also have a history of atopy, and patients with asthma and eczema have previously been shown to have increased intestinal permeability. This study was designed to assess small intestinal and gastric permeability in patients with EoE and to see whether it differed from healthy individuals and patients with reflux esophagitis (RE). METHODS: Gastric and small intestinal permeability was measured using sugar probe tests containing lactulose, mannitol, and sucrose. Lactulose-to-mannitol (L/M) ratios in the patient's urine were a measure for intestinal permeability, and total sucrose was a measure for gastric permeability. RESULTS: We analyzed samples from 23 patients with EoE, 20 RE, 14 normal upper endoscopy with gastrointestinal symptoms, and 26 healthy controls. All of the 4 groups had L/M ratios less than the upper limit of normal (<0.025). There was no statistically significant difference in gastric permeability between the 4 groups (L/M P = 0.26, sucrose P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that an alteration in gastric and intestinal permeability does not play a role in EoE or RE pathogenesis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".