Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The reported effects of asthma on gastroesophageal reflux (GER), effects of GER on asthma and the effects of antireflux therapy on asthma are conflicting. The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence for a relationship between the two conditions. DESIGN: A search of the MEDLINE 1966 to 1999 database, combining the terms GER and asthma, was used to identify studies of the effects of acid perfusion of the esophagus, the physiological equivalent of GER and the effects of both medical and surgical antireflux therapy on asthma. Bibliographies of the identified papers were also reviewed. MAIN RESULTS: The collected evidence suggests that GER causes asthma symptoms but has minimal effects on pulmonary function. Both medical and surgical antireflux therapy can improve asthma symptoms and asthma medication requirements without improving pulmonary function. The paradox of GER causing symptoms without affecting pulmonary function may be because of the retrosternal discomfort that accompanies GER increases minute ventilation and respiratory sensation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an extensive body of literature, many questions remain about the relationship between GER and asthma. A review of the data suggests a strong association between the two conditions, and that GER worsens asthma symptoms without affecting pulmonary function. Asymptomatic GER does not worsen asthma. Antireflux therapy may have a role in asthma patients with symptomatic GER, possibly being most beneficial for those with reflux-associated respiratory symptoms. Unfortunately, many studies contain flaws such as a lack of controls and small sample sizes. Further properly designed controlled trials, including ones that measure the effects of GER and antireflux therapy on quality of life, are needed to understand better the role of GER in asthma.
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 | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".