High‐resolution Esophageal Manometry Patterns in Children and Adolescents With Rumination Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rumination is defined by effortless regurgitation within seconds or minutes of ingested food. The aim of this study was to determine the high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) pattern in children with rumination syndrome. METHODS: HREM was evaluated in 15 pediatric patients with rumination syndrome according to the Rome criteria and compared with 15 controls. Primary rumination was defined as a clinical rumination episode associated with a rise of gastric pressure above 30 mmHg. Secondary rumination was defined as a clinical rumination episode associated with a rise of gastric pressure above 30 mmHg during a transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR). RESULTS: Ninety-two episodes of rumination were demonstrated during HREM study in 12 of the 15 patients (80%; 1-29 episodes per patient; median intragastric pressure 49.6 mmHg). Primary rumination occurred in 3 patients and secondary rumination in 5 patients. One patient had primary and secondary rumination episodes. In 3 patients, classification of rumination episodes was not possible due to repetitive swallowing leading to lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. In the control group, no episodes of rumination occurred. The sensitivity and the specificity of the HREM study (association of a clinical rumination episode with a rise in gastric pressure >30 mmHg) to confirm the diagnosis of rumination were 80% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HREM allows confirming diagnosis of rumination syndrome and to differentiate between primary and secondary rumination in the presence of objective rumination episodes. Further research is needed to study whether HREM results may influence treatment and outcome of children with rumination syndrome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".