Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Associated With Anxiety: Efficacy and Safety of Fixed Dose Combination of Amitriptyline and Pantoprazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fixed dose combination of amitriptyline and pantoprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) associated with anxiety. METHODS: A non-randomized, open-labeled, non-comparative, multi-center study was conducted in a total of 99 patients (77 men and 22 women, mean age 44.16 ± 11.53 years). Each patient was administered a fixed dose combination of amitriptyline 10 mg and pantoprazole 40 mg once a day, for 4 weeks. GERD questionnaire, hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS) and SF-8 questionnaire (short-form health survey) were performed at baseline and at the end of study as assessment tools. RESULTS: At the end of study, data were extractable only in 96 patients because three patients were dropped out due to loss of follow-up at week 4. GERD symptoms and anxiety score reduced significantly (P < 0.0001) at week 4 compared to baseline. SF-8 score also improved significantly (P < 0.0001) at week 4. There were no adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: Amitriptyline and pantoprazole combination was found to be effective and safe for management in GERD patients with coexisting anxiety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".