Sustained esophageal longitudinal smooth muscle contraction may not be a cause of noncardiac chest pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) is poorly understood. Some evidence suggests that it may be related to sustained esophageal contractions (SECs) of longitudinal smooth muscle. This study attempts to evaluate whether SECs play a role in symptom production in NCCP patients. METHODS: This was a prospective double-blind study comparing NCCP patients to healthy controls. Subjects underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry followed by infusions of normal saline and 0.1N hydrochloric acid into the esophagus. Pain intensity was recorded during each minute of the infusion using a visual analog scale between 0 and 10. Two blinded investigators measured the esophageal length at the end of the saline and acid infusion periods as well as the point at which esophageal shortening began using the computer based manometry software. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen NCCP patients and 16 controls completed the study. 64% of study subjects demonstrated esophageal shortening in response to acid infusion with mean shortening of 0.4 ± 0.54 cm. The mean decrease in esophageal length with acid was similar between the groups (1.9% ± 2.6% for NCCP patients vs 1.7% ± 2.4% for controls, P = .82). There was no correlation between pain onset and esophageal shortening. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: NCCP patients did not appear to have an exaggerated esophageal shortening response to intraluminal acid. As well, there was poor temporal correlation between esophageal shortening and symptoms. Thus, acid-induced SECs may not play a significant role in pain production in NCCP patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".