Evaluation of Esophageal Functions by Manometry in Iron Deficiency Anemia Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether any esophageal motor dysfunction exists in patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA). METHODS: The study included 39 patients (34 women, mean age: 44.17 ± 14.21 years) who met WHO diagnostic criteria for IDA. An additional 30 functional dyspepsia patients were also included as a control group. Esophageal motility testing was performed; esophagus contraction amplitude, peak velocity, contraction time, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure, LES relaxation, and LES relaxation duration were assessed. RESULTS: A majority (76.4%) of patients had at least one IDA symptom, such as reflux, chest pain, or dysphagia. Manometric findings in IDA patients vs. controls were as follows: mean LES resting pressure (mm Hg): 25.41 ± 11.67 vs. 19.96 ± 6.58 (P = 0.025); mean esophageal contraction amplitude (mm Hg): 61.61 ± 24.21 vs. 63.23 ± 18.86 (P = 0.764); mean LES relaxation duration (s, x ± SD): 5.33 ± 1.61 vs. 8.75 ± 1.86 (P = 0.000); mean LES relaxation (%): 93.30 ± 9.88 vs. 95.53 ± 5.81 (P = 0.278); mean peak velocity (cm/s): 12.67 ± 37.95 vs. 3.50 ± 1.63 (P = 0.191). Esophageal dysmotility was found in 11 (28.2%) IDA patients. Non-specific esophageal motor disorder was found in three patients, hypomotility of the esophagus was found in three patients, achalasia was found in two patients, hypertensive LES was found in two patients, and hypotensive LES was found in one patient. CONCLUSION: LES resting pressure was higher and LES relaxation duration was shorter in patients with IDA. Esophageal dysmotility was present in 28.2% of the patients with IDA A little more than half of patients had dysphagia symptoms. IDA may contribute to esophageal motility dysfunction and esophageal symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".