[A comparison of clinical characteristics between non-erosive reflux disease and reflux esophagitis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the clinical symptoms of patients with non-erosive reflux disease(NERD) and reflux esophagitis(RE), which is helpful to the differential diagnosis. METHODS: Out-patients who met the criteria of NERD or RE according to the Montreal definition in Gastroenterology Department Wuhan Union Hospital from 2010-2014 were enrolled in our study. Clinical data were comprehensively collected. Incidence of disease, severity, frequency of esophageal and extraesophageal symptoms, and the rates of overlapping with functional dyspepsia (FD) or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) were all studied. RESULTS: Totally 446 subjects were recruited, including 225 patients with NERD and 221 patients with RE. The occurrence rates of esophageal symptoms including heartburn [76.0%(171/225) vs 52.0%(115/221), P<0.01] and acid regurgitation [74.7%(168/225) vs 54.3%(120/221), P<0.05] in NERD group were significantly higher than those in RE patients, with more severe and frequent (P<0.05). Despite the rates of food regurgitation were similar, NERD patients behaved more severely and frequently (P<0.05). Extraesophageal symptoms including throat burning and foreign body sensation in NERD group [40.9%(92/225) vs 27.6%(61/221), 42.2%(95/225) vs 31.7%(70/221), all P<0.05] were also higher than those in RE group, the degree of which was more severe too (P<0.05). RE patients claimed a higher proportion of chronic cough. The incidences of overlapping with IBS in two groups were similar. But there were more patients with FD in NERD group [72.0%(162/225) vs 62.9%(139/221), P<0.05] than in RE group. CONCLUSIONS: The menifestations and degree of esophageal and extraesophageal symptoms in patients with NERD or RE are different, as well as comorbidities such as FD and IBS. These results suggest that NERD and RE are independent diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".