A225 THE UTILITY OF SEPARATE DISTAL AND MID-ESOPHAGEAL BIOPSIES IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS (EOE).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EoE is an increasingly recognized cause of upper gastrointestinal symptomatology particularly dysphagia. The gold standard for diagnosis is the presence of increased eosinophils on esophageal biopsies. To distinguish EoE from esophageal eosinophilia due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), many physicians routinely separate biopsies from the mid and distal esophagus, theorizing that eosinophils will be more numerous in the distal esophagus in GERD and more diffusely distributed in EoE. The aim of our study was to determine if this approach was truly helpful in clinical practice. To determine the utility of comparing distal and mid-esophageal counts in differentiating EoE from GERD. All endoscopically obtained biopsies of the esophagus taken at London Health Sciences Centre between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014 were eligible for review. Patients were only included if they were 18 year old or older and biopsies were taken from the mid and distal esophagus for non-neoplastic findings and separated for review. The pathology was then reviewed by a pathologist blinded to diagnosis and a mean eosinophil count per high-power field (hpf) was calculated for each area. A delta eosinophil count (DEC) was calculated by subtracting the mean count in the distal esophagus from the mean count in the mid-esophagus. If multiple endoscopies were performed, only the first biopsy after the study initiation date was used. 603 patients were included in the analysis. Of these 138 (22.9 %) had a final diagnosis of GERD, 124 (20.6 %) EoE and 341 (56.5 %) normal. The most common predominant symptoms in GERD were heartburn 99 (71.7 %) and dysphagia to solids 70 (50.7 %). The most common predominant symptoms in EoE were dysphagia to solids 90 (72.6 %), atopic symptoms 41 (33.1 %), heartburn 40 (32.3 %) and food impaction 38 (30.6 %). The most common endoscopic findings in EoE were furrows 81 (65.3 %), trachealization 70 (56.4 %) and stricture 29 (32.4 %). The mean eosinophil count in the distal and mid-esophagus respectively was 6.6 and 2.8 in GERD, 80.4 and 76.9 in EoE and 0 and 0 in normal patients. The DEC was positive in 20.3 % of GERD patients and 41.1 % of EoE patients. The mean DEC was -3.8 in GERD patients and -3.5 in patients with EoE. Mucosal eosinophilia is significantly more pronounced in patients with EoE although the difference between eosinophil counts in the mid and distal appears to be of only marginal value in distinguishing between the two diagnoses. Separating specimens for analysis does not appear to be necessary. 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".