Intra-Esophageal pH Monitoring on Two Consecutive Days in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best method to measure the frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux is 24-h pH or 24-h pH/impedance monitoring. However, the detection of reflux can vary when measured on different days. Our aim was to evaluate the possibility that the severity of gastroesophageal reflux is different even under similar conditions on two consecutive days. METHODS: We performed a 48-h pH monitoring in 12 subjects, aged 25 - 63 years, who complaint of heartburn and regurgitation, ten with esophagitis and two with non-erosive disease. The pH measurement was conducted at 5 cm from the lower esophageal sphincter. The patients stayed at the Clinical Investigation Ward of the hospital for 48 h. On each day, they consumed a 2,000 calorie diet. The results obtained on the first day were compared with those on the second day. RESULTS: Mean reflux index in the upright position was different between the two days. Results of the pH-monitoring within the 2 h after the meal revealed differences in the number of acidic reflux and reflux index episodes. Three patients had abnormal DeMeester score on one day and normal score on the other day. Considering the upper limit of 6.0% of the test duration with esophageal pH < 4 as indicative of gastroesophageal reflux disease, two patients showed abnormal results on one day and normal results on the other day. CONCLUSIONS: The 24-h pH monitoring, performed on two consecutive days under similar conditions, can lead to different diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in symptomatic 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".