Diagnostic Value of Mid-esophageal Biopsies in Pediatric Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is histologically defined as the presence of 15 or more intraepithelial eosinophils per high-power fields. Limited consensus exists on where to sample the esophagus in pediatrics. This study aimed to identify whether endoscopic and histologic examination of the mid esophagus offers diagnostic value compared to proximal/distal esophageal biopsies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients with EoE was performed. Endoscopic and histologic parameters were assessed at the initial and follow-up visits, and concordance between proximal/distal biopsy and mid biopsy was determined. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients with a mean age of 9.6 ± 4.07 years were included. Endoscopic parameters between proximal/distal and mid esophagus were concordant in 84% to 97% of patients (initial assessment) and in 80% to 97% of patients (at follow-up). Mid esophagus showed endoscopic abnormalities, which were absent at the proximal/distal esophagus in 1% to 5% of patients, as well as histologic abnormalities in 2% to 8% of patients overall at initial and follow-up examinations. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend continued endoscopic and histologic assessment of the proximal/distal biopsy; however, examination of the mid esophagus does offer small diagnostic value in our subset of patients. Future studies need to be conducted before conclusive recommendations supporting the use of mid-esophageal biopsies can be made.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".