Chicago Classification update (V4.0): Technical review on diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and absent contractility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esophageal hypomotility disorders manifest with abnormal esophageal body contraction vigor, breaks in peristaltic integrity, or failure of peristalsis in the context of normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). The Chicago Classification version 4.0 recognizes two hypomotility disorders, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and absent contractility, while fragmented peristalsis has been incorporated into the IEM definition. Updated criteria for ineffective swallows consist of weak esophageal body contraction vigor measured using distal contractile integral (DCI, 100-450 mmHg·cm·s), transition zone defects >5 cm measured using a 20 mmHg isobaric contour, or failure of peristalsis (DCI < 100 mmHg·cm·s). More than 70% ineffective swallows and/or ≥50% failed swallows are required for a conclusive diagnosis of IEM. When the diagnosis is inconclusive (50%-70% ineffective swallows), supplementary evidence from multiple rapid swallows (absence of contraction reserve), barium radiography (abnormal bolus clearance), or HRM with impedance (abnormal bolus clearance) could support a diagnosis of IEM. Absent contractility requires 100% failed peristalsis, consistent with previous versions of the classification. Consideration needs to be given for the possibility of achalasia in absent contractility with dysphagia despite normal IRP, and alternate complementary tests (including timed upright barium esophagram and functional lumen imaging probe) are recommended to confirm or refute the presence of achalasia. Future research to quantify esophageal bolus retention on stationary HRM with impedance and to understand contraction vigor thresholds that predict bolus clearance will provide further refinement to diagnostic criteria for esophageal hypomotility disorders in future iterations of the Chicago Classification.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
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".