Extraesophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are known to be frequent in pregnancy. The aim of this study was to gain a first estimation of the occurrence of extraesophageal symptoms in this context. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was performed on 166 pregnant women and in a control group of 285 women. The diagnosis of GERD was based on the Montreal classification using the reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ). Extraesophageal symptoms were recorded with a self-administered questionnaire. Typical GERD symptoms and extraesophageal GERD symptoms were recorded in each trimester of pregnancy. RESULTS: The prevalence of GERD during pregnancy was 16.9% in the first, 25.3% in the second and 51.2% in the third trimester. The prevalence of GERD in the control group was 6.3%. Asthma was reported by 3.5% of controls and by 6% of pregnant women during pregnancy. Chest pain occurred in 6% of the controls and in 1.8%, 2.4% and 2.4% during the trimesters of pregnancy, chronic cough was reported by 1.1% of controls and 1.2% of pregnant women. With the diagnosis of GERD the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for asthma, chronic cough and chest pain in the third trimester of pregnancy were as follows: 1.56 (0.58-4.22) for asthma, 0.91 (0.08-10.28) for chronic cough and 2.04 (0.49-8.46) for chest pain. CONCLUSION: GERD is very frequent during pregnancy with progressive incidence during the course of pregnancy. Extraesophageal symptoms of GERD have an unexpected low prevalence during pregnancy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".