A50 VARIATION IN DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR LYMPHOCYTIC ESOPHAGITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lymphocytic esophagitis (LyE) is a novel clinicopathologic entity, that presents as dysphagia, with an endoscopic appearance similar to eosinophilic esophagitis. There is no standard histologic definition used in the literature. To determine the variation of the histologic criteria used to diagnose LyE. We conducted a systematic review in the Embase, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases. Studies were included if they used a histologic diagnostic criteria for LyE in human patients. We identified 29 relevant studies. There is a growing literature on LyE (Fig 1). Diagnostic criteria are summarized in Table 1. For IELs, 15 studies (52%) included a cut-off, with 3 (10%) that specified CD3 positive staining and 16 (55%) that specified localization in peri-papillary fields. In addition, 6 studies (21%) included the presence of spongiosis in their criteria and 28 studies (97%) specifed granulocytes should be rare or absent. There is considerable variation in criteria used to diagnose LyE, highlighting the need for consensus guidelines. Table 1. Diagnostic criteria for LyE used in the literature *0–2, 5, and 10 cm above the gastroesophageal junction, respectively eos: eosinophils IEGs: intraepithelial granulocytes NA: not available N/F: none to few granulocytes NS: not specified Table 1. Diagnostic criteria for LyE used in the literature *0–2, 5, and 10 cm above the gastroesophageal junction, respectively eos: eosinophils IEGs: intraepithelial granulocytes NA: not available N/F: none to few granulocytes NS: not specified Figure 1. Line plot of the number of studies on LyE None
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 | 0.020 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".