MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338626022 · doi:10.1155/2000/595349

Achalasia: Treatment Options Revisited

2000· review· en· W2338626022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Willemijntje A. Hoogerwerf, Pankaj J. Pasricha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMedicineMyotomyDysphagiaBotulinum toxinChokingSurgeryPerforationHeller myotomyEsophageal sphincterAnesthesiaEsophagusRefluxDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of all current forms of treatment of achalasia is to enable the patient to eat without disabling symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation, coughing or choking. Historically, this has been accomplished by mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter fibres, either by means of pneumatic dilation (PD) or by open surgical myotomy. The addition of laparoscopic myotomy and botulinum toxin (BTX) injection to the therapeutic armamentarium has triggered a recent series of reviews to determine the optimal therapeutic approach. Both PD and BTX have excellent short term (less than three months) efficacy in the majority of patients. New data have been published that suggest that PD and BTX (with repeat injections) can potentially obtain long term efficacy. PD is still considered the first-line treatment by most physicians; its main disadvantage is risk of perforation. BTX injection is evolving as an excellent, safe option for patients who are considered high risk for more invasive procedures. Laparoscopic myotomy with combined antireflux surgery is an increasingly attractive option in younger patients with achalasia, but long term follow-up studies are required to establish its efficacy and the potential for reflux-related sequelae.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207