Aspiration Risk and Respiratory Complications in Patients with Esophageal Atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic, long-term respiratory morbidity (CRM) is common in patients with a history of repaired congenital esophageal atresia, typically associated with tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF). EA/TEF patients are at high risk of having aspiration, and retrospective studies have associated CRM with both recurrent aspiration and atopy. However, studies evaluating the association between CRM in this population and either aspiration or atopy have reported conflicting results. Furthermore, CRM in this population may be due to other related conditions as well, such as tracheomalacia and/or recurrent infections. Aspiration is difficult to confirm, short of lung biopsy. Moreover, even within the largest evidence base assessing the association between CRM and aspiration, which has evaluated the potential relationship between gastroesophageal reflux and asthma, findings are contradictory. Studies attempting to relate CRM to prior aspiration events may inadequately estimate the frequency and severity of previous aspiration episodes. There is convincing evidence documenting that chronic, massive aspiration in patients with repaired EA/TEF is associated with the development of bronchiectasis. While chronic aspiration is likely associated with other CRM in patients with repaired EA/TEF, this does not appear to have been confirmed by the data currently available. Prospective studies that systematically evaluate aspiration risk and allergic disease in patients with repaired EA/TEF and document subsequent CRM will be needed to clarify the causes of CRM in this population. Given the prevalence of CRM, patients with repaired EA/TEF should ideally receive regular follow-up by multidisciplinary teams with expertise in this condition, throughout both childhood and adulthood.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".