Outcomes and Predictors for Re‐stenosis of Esophageal Stricture in Epidermolysis Bullosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal strictures are the common gastrointestinal complications in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) requiring dilation. There is limited information on the best type of intervention, outcomes, and predictors for re-stenosis. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the frequency, clinical presentation of esophageal strictures in EB patients, and to ascertain the predictors of re-stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study involving 7 specialized, international EB centers on patients who were 0 to 50 years of age. Descriptive statistics and hazard risks for re-stenosis were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 125 patients with 497 esophageal stricture episodes over a mean period of observation of 17 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.91) years. Dilations were attempted in 90.74% of episodes, using guided fluoroscopy 45.23%, retrograde endoscopy 33.04%, and antegrade endoscopy 19.07%. Successful dilation was accomplished in 99.33% of attempts. Patients experienced a median of 2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7) stricture episodes with a median interval between dilations of 7 (IQR: 4-12) months. Predictors for re-stenosis included: number of strictures (2 vs 1 stricture: χ = 4.293, P = 0.038, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.294 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.014--1.652 and 3 vs 1 stricture:χ = 7.986, P = 0.005, HR = 1.785 [95% CI: 1.194, 2.667]) and a long (≥1 cm) segment stricture (χ = 4.599, P = 0.032, HR = 1.347 (95% CI: 1.026--1.769). Complications were more common with the endoscopic approach (8/86, antegrade endoscopy; 2 /149, retrograde endoscopy vs 2/204, fluoroscopy; χ = 17.39, P-value <0.000). CONCLUSIONS: We found excellent dilation outcomes irrespective of the dilation procedure; however, with higher complications in the endoscopic approach. Long (>1 cm) segment involvement and multiple locations were predictive of stricture reoccurrence.
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".