A233 AGING AND ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY: A HIGH-RESOLUTION MANOMETRY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Studies have found possible physiologic changes to esophageal motility with aging that are not currently taken into account in routine high-definition esophageal manometry (HDEM) interpretation. Aims We aimed to quantify the relationship between these physiologic changes and aging to improve HDEM interpretation. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical records for all patients who underwent HDEM at a tertiary hospital center between January 2015 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years with normal HDEM. Exclusion criteria were abnormal HDEM; abnormal upper digestive endoscopy or imagery. Outcomes were median integrated relaxation pressure (IRP); mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure; mean distal contractal integral (DCI); mean distal latency (DL); mean peristaltic break (PB) according to the v3.0 Chicago classification criteria. Data was extracted from electronic patient medical records into a database for analysis. Effect of age on outcomes was examined through univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. Results We identified 1917 patients with HDEM and included 790 patients with normal exams [mean age 55.8 yrs (IQR 46 – 66), 64% female]. Indications for HDEM included dysphagia (41.3%); gastroesophageal reflux disease (29.2%); chest pain (11.0%); other (13.3%). There was a statistically significant relationship between age and IRP [Coef=0.08 (95%CI 0.05 – 0.1), p<0.001, R^2=0.04] as well as DCI [Coef=10.9 (95%CI 4.1 – 17.8), p=0.002, R^2=0.01] and DL [Coef=-0.01 (95%CI -0.02 – -0.002), p=0.01, R^2=0.008]. No statistically significant relationship was found between age and LES pressure [Coef=0.03 (95%CI -0.01 – 0.08), p=0.16] or PB [Coef=0.007 (95%CI -0.002 – 0.016), p=0.14]. Multivariate analysis showed statistically significant relationships between IRP and age (p<0.001), BMI (p=0.001), NSAID use (p=0.034), and female sex (p=0.048). Conclusions We found that IRP, DCI, and DL are significantly correlated with the normal aging process. Modifications could therefore be considered for normal diagnostic cutoffs for both age extremes to prevent over or under-diagnosis of motility disorders. Funding Agencies None
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".