[Comparison of mucosal reflux damage in remnant esophagus after esophagectomy and gastric interposition between Chinese and Canadian population].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference of mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus with similar postoperative reflux after esophagectomy and gastric interposition between Chinese and Canadian population. METHODS: A prospective 1 to 1 paired study based on the same surgical approach was performed in Medical Centre of University of Montreal and West China Hospital of Sichuan University during the period from September 2010 to October 2013. The patients were followed up and evaluated by reflux symptom scoring, endoscopic assessment of mucosal damage, pathologic examination of biopsies and proliferation index test of esophageal epithelium. RESULTS: Eighteen Han Chinese and 18 Caucasian Canadian patients with esophagectomy and gastric interposition were included in this study, with a follow-up period of 45 (28-67) months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative reflux symptom, reflux symptom scoring, histological reflux esophagitis, erosion or stricture of remnant esophagus (all P>0.05). However, the incidence of mucosal metaplasia [44.4% (8/18) versus 11.1% (2/18), P=0.026], quantitative MUSE scoring [1.5 (1.0-2.0) versus 1.0 (0-2.0), P=0.042] and proliferation index [0.40 (0.30-0.45) versus 0.35 (0.30-0.50), P=0.038] of esophageal epithelium were significantly higher in Canadian patients than those in Chinese patients. CONCLUSION: Under similar reflux situation, esophageal mucosa of Canadian population is more sensitive to the gastroesophageal reflux damage compared with Chinese population, resulting in more severe reflux damage of remnant esophagus in Canadian patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".