Globus Pharyngeus: Effectiveness of Treatment with Proton Pump Inhibitors and Gabapentin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to investigate the effectiveness of treatment of globus pharyngeus with proton pump inhibitors, gabapentin, or both. METHODS: The subjects all presented with globus pharyngeus during the years 2006 to 2011. The inclusion criteria included a chief (primary) complaint of globus pharyngeus; a trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy for at least 2 months and/or a trial of gabapentin for at least 2 weeks; and at least 1 follow-up visit. We reviewed 331 charts; 87 patients met the criteria. The response to treatment was graded as none, partial, or complete. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of all patients had improvement. Sixty-seven percent of patients had a partial or complete response from aggressive reflux management. Sixty-six percent of patients who had a trial of gabapentin reported improvement. Eight of 14 patients who did not improve with aggressive reflux management improved with gabapentin. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with globus pharyngeus can be helped by treating reflux or neuralgia. A trial of gabapentin should be considered for patients who do not respond or only partially respond to reflux management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".