1783 The Association of Sloughing Esophagitis With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A review of current literature shows eosinophilic esophagitis and sloughing esophagitis as two distinct esophageal conditions that are diagnosed using clinical and pathological findings unique to each condition. Eosinophilic esophagitis is a known inflammatory condition associated with atopy, where high concentrations of eosinophils are found in the esophageal tissues resulting in esophageal dysfunction. Sloughing esophagitis however, is the necrosis and parakaratosis of longitudinal segments of surface esophageal squamous epithelium with intact underlying squamous epithelium underneath. This has been mainly associated with exposure to chemical esophageal irritants such as bisphosphonates and, on rare occasions, inflammatory conditions such as celiac disease. CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS: We will describe a case of an otherwise healthy adult patient with eosinophilic esophagitis that presented to the emergency department repeatedly for food boluses. She was referred to gastroenterology and diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis. Unfortunately she was refractory to standard treatments to manage symptoms such as antiacid agents, inhaled corticosteriods, viscous budesonide, prednisone, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. She underwent a 6 food elimination diet to help identify a food trigger. Although improvement of her symptoms were seen with 6 food elimination, the reintroduction of wheat caused a return of her eosinophilic esophagitis symptoms, as well as findings on endoscopy consistent with sloughing esophagitis. DISCUSSION: An increasing incidence of both conditions presenting in the same patient may be suggestive of a similar underlying mechanism, and given the clinical context of this case, both conditions may be reflective of an immune-mediated response to a specific antigen trigger.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".