DOZ047.17: Characterization of esophageal motility in children with operated esophageal atresia using high-resolution impedance manometry and pressure flow analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Esophageal dysmotility is common in patients with esophageal atresia (EA). High-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) and pressure flow analysis (PFA) allow characterization of biomechanical bolus flow and swallow properties. The aim of this study was to characterize esophageal motility and bolus flow propulsion in children who underwent surgical EA repair. Patients and Methods HRIM was used in 14 children with EA (type C, n = 13; type A, n = 1). Study was performed at a median (range) age of 11 years (5–17). The HRIM recordings were analyzed using conventional esophageal pressure topography and PFA (AIMplot software deployed via the open access Swallow Gateway application) and were compared with 13 patient controls (median age 14 years, range 5.75–17; P = NS vs patients) who underwent HRIM considered as normal according to Chicago classification and for whom the manometry results did not lead to treatment changes. Medical charts were reviewed for medical/surgical history and symptoms were assessed by standardized questionnaires. Results Esophageal peristaltic motor patterns were abnormal in all EA patients and were subdivided in two groups: Group A with presence of distal contraction in ≥ 50% of the swallows (n = 6) and Group B with presence of distal contractions in < 50% of the swallows (n = 8). IRP4s was similar in EA and controls. Bolus transport was impaired as shown by the higher impedance ratio (IR) in EA than in controls (0.47 vs 0.22, P < 0.001). In Group A, proximal and distal contractile integrals were lower than in controls (P < 0.001) and distal contractile velocity was shorter in EA (P < 0.01). IR was lower in Group A than in Group B (P < 0.01). In this sample, symptoms of dysphagia and presence of gastric metaplasia or esophagitis were not correlated with any of the measures determined. Conclusions Bolus transport as measured by impedance ratio is severely altered in EA patients but is not predictive of symptoms. The presence of residual distal contractions is associated with a more efficient bolus propulsion. Whether this is associated with a better outcome warrants further studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".