MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328560808 · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e318288a3c2

The Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults

2013· review· en· W2328560808 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Segal, Nilesh Chande

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilic esophagitisMedicineDiseaseInflammationEsophagitisPopulationDermatologyGastroenterologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), typically a pediatric disease, is becoming more frequently recognized in adults. The optimal treatment of EoE in this population has not yet been established. This paper reviews the literature detailing the treatments for EoE in adults, and provides a treatment strategy. To accomplish this task a comprehensive literature search of Medline was undertaken for studies evaluating the treatment of EoE in adults. High-dose topical corticosteroids and specific elimination diets have been found to improve symptoms, reduce eosinophilic infiltrate in esophageal mucosa, and improve endoscopic markers of inflammation. Dilation therapy does improve symptoms but not underlying inflammation. Other treatments including leukotriene inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs have been unsuccessful. An effective strategy for treating EoE in adults is using topical corticosteroids and elimination diets for inflammatory disease, and esophageal dilation for fibrotic disease. The conclusion that inflammatory and fibrotic components of EoE respond to different treatment modalities should be evaluated in future clinical trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207