MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2864186671 · doi:10.1111/nyas.13909

Recent advances in Barrett's esophagus

2018· review· en· W2864186671 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Inadomi, Hani Alastal, Luigi Bonavina, Seth A. Gross, Richard H. Hunt, Hiroshi Mashimo, Massimiliano di Pietro, Horace Rhee, Marmy Shah, Salvatore Tolone, David H. Wang, Shao‐Hua Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsophagusMedicineBarrett's esophagusRisk stratificationCancerGastroenterologyEsophageal adenocarcinomaEsophageal cancerIncidence (geometry)Intervention (counseling)AdenocarcinomaInternal medicineOncologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, one of the few cancers with increasing incidence in developed countries. The pathogenesis of BE is unclear with regard to either the cellular origin of this metaplastic epithelium or the manner in which malignant transformation occurs, although recent data indicate a possible junctional origin of stem cells for BE. Treatment of BE may be achieved using endoscopic eradication therapy; however, there is a lack of discriminatory tools to identify individuals at sufficient risk for cancer development in whom intervention is warranted. Reduction in gastroesophageal reflux of gastric contents including acid is mandatory to achieve remission from BE after endoscopic ablation, and can be achieved using medical or nonmedical interventions. Research topics of greatest interest include the mechanism of BE development and transformation to cancer, risk stratification methods to identify individuals who may benefit from ablation of BE, optimization of eradication therapy, and surveillance methods to ensure that remission is maintained after eradication is achieved.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207