Application and clinical significance of 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring in gastroesophageal reflux disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the application and clinical significance of 24-hour multichannel intraaluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).Methods Fiftythree patients with GERD were enrolled in this study according to the Montreal consensus (consulting for twice reflux a week or above) from July 2011 to June 2012.Patients were divided into erosive esophagitis (EE,n =25)group and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD,n =28) group after endoscopy and MII-pH monitoring.Fifteen healthy volunteers were recruited as the normal controls.The change of pH and MII-pH parameters were compared among the three groups and the significance of the change was investigated.Results Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring showed that all the acid reflux events in the EE and the NERD groups were significantly higher than those in the control group (P ＜ 0.05).MII-pH monitoring showed that the frequencies of total reflux,acid reflux,weakly acidic reflux and percentage of acid reflux in the GERD group were higher than in the control group (total reflux:83 (54,118) vs.62 (44,111) vs.42 (20,70),P =0.003 ; acid reflux:45 (25,79) vs.22 (11,45) vs.3(1,10),P =0.000 ;weakly acidic reflux:36(18,47) vs.43(21,82) vs.23(11,43),P =0.001 ;percentage of acid reflux:53％ (37％,81％) vs.32％ (13％,48％) vs.11％ (1％,23％),P =0.002).The frequency and percentage of acid reflux in the EE group were higher than those in the NERD group (P =0.000)The percentage of weakly acidic reflux in the NERD group was higher than in the EE group (66％ (43％,79％) vs.46％ (21％,57％),P ＜0.01).The frequencies of liquid reflux and mixed reflux in the GERD groups were higher than those in the control group (22 (12,40) vs.18 (12,26) vs.9 (4,18) ; 54 (39,79) vs.42 (25,77) vs.29(14,48) ;P ＜0.01).The frequency of gas reflux in the control group was higher than in the GERD group (86(56,207) vs.31 (14,62) vs.34 (15,119),P ＜ 0.01).The frequency and percentage of proximal reflux in the GERD group were significantly higher than in the control group (28(18,41) vs.16(12,34) vs.3 (2,9) ; 33％ (22％,49％) vs.29％ (22％,35％) vs.11％ (6％,22％),P ＜ 0.001).The percentage of symptom positive index in patients with acid reflux,non-acidic reflux and total reflux in the EE group were 36.0％ (9/25),20.0％ (5/25) and 56.0％ (14/25) respectively which were higher than in the NERD group (21.4％ (6/28),14.3％ (4/28) and 35.7％ (10/28)).Conclusion MII-pH monitoring can detect more reflux events.Acid reflux plays an important role in GERD.The detective rate of GERD will be elevated when combined with MII-pH monitoring in the diagnosis.MII-pH monitoring has a distinct advantage in diagnosing GERD. Key words: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Erosive esophagitis; Non-erosive reflux disease; Multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".