Esophageal foreign bodies: observational cohort study and factors associated with recurrent impaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal foreign bodies, including food bolus impaction, represent a common clinical problem. The prevalence of underlying esophageal disease depends on study design and degree of suspicion of a structural or functional esophageal abnormality. Aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with recurrent impaction. METHODS: The prospectively collected database at a University Hospital and Swallowing Center was reviewed from January 2012 to June 2019 to identify all patients admitted for esophageal foreign bodies. Patients who underwent an emergency endoscopic procedure represented the final study sample. Patient characteristics, including history of previous esophageal foreign bodies, and type of endoscopic procedure were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients, 41 males and 24 females with a median age of 59 years, underwent emergency endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies during the study period. Food bolus was the most common foreign body (n = 43, 66%). Flexible endoscopy was successful in retrieving or pushing the foreign bodies in the stomach in 91% of patients. In 54% of patients, impaction was secondary to an underlying esophageal disorder, which was previously unrecognized in half of them. Recurrent impaction was more common in patients with esophageal disease (P < 0.011). Surgical therapy was required in 4 patients (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Food bolus impaction is a common sentinel event in patients with underlying esophageal disease and is associated with recurrent impaction. Diagnostic endoscopy with biopsies should possibly be performed at the first episode of impaction. Patients with negative biopsies should undergo barium swallow study and high-resolution esophageal manometry.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".