Is gastroesophageal reflux disease associated with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) have an increased prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) compared to the general population. METHODS: Cross-sectional case-control study. The Mayo Clinic Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) is used to help physicians diagnose GERD. The retrospective group consisted of patients who previously had a dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) over a 4-year period by one surgeon (JTH) at one institution. The prospective group included consecutive patients undergoing DCR over an 8-month period for PANDO. The control group consisted of patients at our institution who did not have complaints related to nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) or a known history of NLDO. The RDQ score or a previous diagnosis of GERD was recorded for each patient. The prevalence of patients with GERD in each of the groups was compared to that in the control group using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Nine (7.7%) of 117 patients in the control group were found to have GERD. Twenty-four of 65 (36.9%) patients in the retrospective cohort were found to have GERD. Twelve of 18 (66.7%) patients in the prospective cohort were found to have GERD. When the prospective and retrospective groups were compared to the control group, the presence of GERD was higher in patients with NLDO (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study and compared to the general population, GERD has an increased prevalence in patients with PANDO. GERD may have a role in the development of PANDO.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".