MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792911267 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.230

A229 CLINICAL AND ENDOSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LYMPHOCYTIC ESOPHAGITIS

2018· article· en· W2792911267 on OpenAlexaff
Thurarshen Jeyalingam, Ahmed Al‐Mazroui, Catherine Streutker, Michael A. Scaffidi, Daniel J. Low, Samir C. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaEsophagitisInternal medicineGastroenterologyEndoscopyEsophagusDiseaseGERDRefluxRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphocytic esophagitis (LE) is a pathologic diagnosis characterized by intraepithelial lymphocytic (IEL) infiltration of the esophageal epithelium. It is a recently acknowledged disease entity, and remains underexplored in the literature. Moreover, the pathophysiology, clinical presentation and endoscopic associations of LE are still unclear. To characterize the demographic, clinical, pathologic and endoscopic findings of LE. This is a case series conducted at a single academic centre. Patients with histologic findings suggestive of LE from esophageal biopsies done from 2010 to 2016 were identified from a clinical database. Patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentations, treatments, imaging findings and endoscopic features were extracted from electronic medical records and descriptive statistics were performed. Twenty-four patients with LE were identified. The average age was 58.5 and 71% were male. Common comorbidities included HIV (20.8%), asthma (16.7%), and diabetes mellitus (12.5%). The most prevalent clinical presentations were dysphagia (75%), reflux (66.7%), and food bolus obstruction (16.7%). Endoscopy and imaging most frequently demonstrated esophageal rings or webs (50%), esophagitis (20.8%), strictures (20.8%), and furrows (16.7%). In 20.8% of patients, the treating gastroenterologist did not make a definitive clinical diagnosis. Treatments employed included proton pump inhibitors (62.5%), esophageal dilatation (37.5%) and topical steroids (16.7%). LE occurs predominately in males and a sizeable proportion demonstrate HIV positivity, dysphagia or reflux; frequent endoscopic abnormalities include esophageal rings, webs, and strictures. Treatment approaches were variable, although the most common modalities used were proton pump inhibitors, endoscopic dilatation and topical steroids. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings as well as characterize the natural history and efficacy of treatment modalities for this rare condition. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207