MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138678048 · doi:10.1097/mcg.0000000000001516

Prevalence and Clinical and Endoscopic Characteristics of Cervical Inlet Patch (Heterotopic Gastric Mucosa)

2021· article· en· W3138678048 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInletEndoscopyComplicationMEDLINERetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical inlet patch (CIP), also called gastric inlet patch, is a heterotopic columnar mucosal island located in the cervical esophagus, which has been under-recognized by clinicians. AIM: We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to explore the prevalence and clinical and endoscopic characteristics of CIP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were searched through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The prevalence of CIP with 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled by using a random-effect model. The association of CIP with demographics, clinical presentations, and endoscopic features was evaluated by odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Fifty-three studies including 932,777 patients were eligible. The pooled prevalence of CIP was 3.32% (95% CI=2.86%-3.82%). According to the endoscopic mode, the pooled prevalence of CIP was higher in studies using narrow-band imaging than in those using white light and esophageal capsule endoscopy (9.34% vs. 2.88% and 0.65%). The pooled prevalence of CIP was higher in studies where the endoscopists paid specific attention to the detection of this lesion (5.30% vs. 0.75%). CIP was significantly associated with male (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.09-1.42, P=0.001), gastroesophageal reflux disease (OR=1.32, 95% CI=1.04-1.68, P=0.03), reflux symptoms (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.14-1.83, P=0.002), dysphagia (OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.28-2.77, P=0.001), throat discomfort (OR=4.58, 95% CI=1.00-21.02, P=0.05), globus (OR=2.95, 95% CI=1.52-5.73, P=0.001), hoarseness (OR=4.32, 95% CI=1.91-9.78, P=0.0004), cough (OR=3.48, 95% CI=1.13-10.72, P=0.03), Barrett's esophagus (OR=2.01, 95% CI=1.37-2.94, P=0.0003), and esophagitis (OR=1.62, 95% CI=1.27-2.07, P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: CIP appears to be common by using narrow-band imaging, especially if the endoscopists would like to pay attention to the detection of this lesion. CIP is clearly associated with acid-related symptoms and Barrett's esophagus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207