MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Halitosis and GERD

2006· article· en· W2977422839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luciana Camacho-Lobato, Thiago R. Pellegrine, Silvia Romero Pinheiro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGERDInternal medicineGastroenterologyDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Halitosis has been reported as an extra-esophageal manifestation of GERD. This relationship though has not been adequately proved. Aim: The purpose of this study is to ascertain the relationship between halitosis and GERD as well as try to establish its frequency and characteristics. Methods: Twenty three consecutive adult patients with GERD (mean age 54 years, SD 12, 91% female) and 17 consecutive adult patients with dyspepsia (mean age 56 years, SD 15, 88% female) (control group)seen at the Gastroesophageal Motility Outpatients Unit during the month of May 2006 were invited to participate in this study. This study was approved by the IRB and all patients gave written informed consent. All patients had their oral volatile sulfur compounds measured by Halimeter (Interscan Corporation, Chatsworth, Canada) and their charts review for demographics, comorbidities (diabetes, chronic renal and/or liver failure, constipation, pulmonary abscess, chronic ENT diseases, and periodontitis), medications, smoking, eating habits, as well as 24 hour pHmetry and upper gastroesophageal endoscopy results. Results: 39% of Gerd patients had halitosis,17% of extra-oral origin and 22% of oral origin, 75% and 100% were associated to IBP usage, respectively. Halitosis was found in 18% of the dyspesia patients, 6% of extra-oral origin and 12% of oral origin, 0% and 50% were associated to IBP usage, respectively. All extra-oral halitosis patients had pathologic acid distal esophageal reflux (25% ortostatic, 75% supine). Non-erosive GERD prevailed (75%). No gender differences were observed in the GERD group. Contingency tables (Chi-Square) failed to demonstrate any statistical differences between the two groups. Conclusions: Regarding the relationship between Halitosis and GERD:1. Oral ethiologies must always be excluded, 2.Oral or gastrointestinal bacteria overgrowth associated to IBP usage may play a role, 3. It seems there is no need for proximal GERD, 4.Larger studies must be undertaken to further investigate this matter.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→