MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2920866422 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.170

A171 GERD IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH JACKHAMMER ESOPHAGUS

2019· article· en· W2920866422 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Woo, A Liu, Lynn Wilsack, Michelle Buresi, Melissa Curley, M Gupta, D Y Li, Christopher N. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGERDEsophagusMedicineDysphagiaHigh resolution manometryRefluxEsophageal motility disorderGastroenterologyHeartburnInternal medicineChest painEsophageal spasmAmbulatorySurgeryAchalasiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysphagia and non-cardiac chest pain are common referrals for esophageal motility testing. Hypertensive esophageal peristalsis, previously classified as “nutcracker esophagus,” has been re-labelled as “jackhammer esophagus” by the Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders (CC v3.0). Although the pathophysiology of jackhammer esophagus (JE) has yet to be elucidated, gastroesophageal acid reflux (GERD) has been implicated as a possible causative factor, based on the higher than expected incidence of GERD on patients with JE that has been seen in previous studies (43 - 47%). The aim of this present study is to determine if GERD is associated with JE when compared to symptomatic controls with normal HRM. Consecutive symptomatic patients who were referred for esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) studies in Calgary, AB from Nov 2013 to Sept 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a manometric diagnosis of Jackhammer esophagus by CC v3.0 (≥ 2 hypercontractile swallows with distal contractile integral [DCI] > 8000 mmHg-s-cm) who also underwent ambulatory pH studies were compared to patients with normal HRM (controls). Groups were compared with Pearson’s chi-square testing and ANOVA as appropriate. This study was IRB approved. 20 JE patients and 82 controls who underwent both HRM and ambulatory pH testing were identified. Age and gender breakdown were similar between both groups (see Table 1). The most common presenting complaint in the JE group was dysphagia (35.0%) and in controls was heartburn (26.8%). Similar numbers of both groups were on PPI (50.0% JE, 51.2% controls). 3 (25.0%) JE patients and 14 (17.1%) controls had evidence of abnormal acid exposure on 24h ambulatory pH study (defined as DeMeester score > 14.7); this difference was not significant (p = 0.56). When abnormal acid exposure was defined as acid exposure time (AET) > 4.2%, there was no significant difference seen between both groups (p = 0.50). There were no significant differences seen between other parameters of the DeMeester score (see Table 1). Abnormal acid exposure on ambulatory pH study does not appear to be associated with JE, when compared to patients with normal HRM. This finding suggests that abnormal esophageal acid exposure is unlikely to be a causative factor for the peristaltic abnormalities seen in Jackhammer esophagus. Table 1: Demographics and GERD parameters 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→