Gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: lest we forget what we already know
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the performance of the first peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in 2008, POEM has now spread worldwide and has arguably become a first-line treatment option for achalasia. Recently, there is increasing debate regarding post-POEM gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The reported incidences of GERD vary widely, owing to the variability in the definitions used. The literature regarding GERD and achalasia patients with a focus on 24-hour pH testing, esophageal acid exposure, and fermentation and the definitions of GERD used in the POEM literature are examined. 24-hour pH testing in achalasia patients may be abnormal due to fermentation both pre- and post-treatment. It is vital that POEM operators ensure that fermentation is recognized during 24-hour pH testing and excluded in the analysis of acid exposure time (AET) used in the diagnosis of GERD. In untreated achalasia, 24-hour pH testing may suggest abnormal AET in over a third of patients. However, most abnormal AETs in untreated achalasia patients are due to fermentation rather than GER. In treated achalasia, up to half of the patients with abnormal AET may be attributable to fermentation. To have a candid discussion and appropriately address the questions surrounding post-POEM GERD, consistent definitions need to be applied. We suggest the recent definition of GERD from the Lyon Consensus to be utilized when diagnosing GERD in post-POEM patients. Further studies are required in establishing ideal parameters for 24-hour pH testing in achalasia 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".