MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical manifestations of GERD in smoking patients

2015· article· en· W2481899055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Pidzimyan, О. В. Дудина, V. N. Yablonskaya, Н. Л. Шапорова

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGERDEsophagogastroduodenoscopyHeartburnNauseaDysphagiaVomitingChest painBloatingEsophagitisSwallowingInternal medicineEpigastric painSore throatOdynophagiaGastroenterologyThroatRefluxSurgeryEndoscopyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To demonstrate clinical manifestations of GERD in smoking patients, we examined 67 smoking patients - 26 men who were between 18 to 71 years (median age 52,4 ± 9,1) and 41 women who were between 19 to 69 years (median age 44,3 ± 7,9), as well as 34 non-smoking patients - 13 men who were between 21 to 68 years (median age 53,1 ± 8,4) and 21 women who were between 20 to 72 years (median age 46,1 ± 8,2) suffering from GERD. GERD diagnosis in all patients was established under the Montreal definition and confirmed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (showed signs of reflux esophagitis). All of the surveyed persons other than the standard clinical and instrumental examination applied our proposed original questionnaire for smoking patients with GERD, which takes into account esophageal and extraesophageal complaints. The survey showed that in the group of patients who smoke heartburn observed in 1.23 times, sour belching 1.6 times, belching air 1.24 times, dysphagia 2.1 times, painful swallowing 2.4 times, the feeling of a lump in the throat 1.23 times, coughing 1.97 times, chest pain 1.5 times, shortness of breath while lying 1.63 times, bloating 1.31 times, nausea 1.5 times more often, hoarseness 1,3 times are more likely than in the group of non-smokers patients. At the same time, the frequency of complaints of pain in the epigastric region, oral erosions in both groups was similar. Salivation and vomiting in 1.42 and 1.43 times, respectively, more often observed in non-smoking patients. Smoking has a significant impact on the incidence and nature of complaints in patients with GERD.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→