Incidence of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Characterization of the Stricturing Phenotype in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited work has been done to characterize the stricturing pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) phenotype. We aimed to determine, in pediatric EoE: the local incidence, the frequency of esophageal stricturing, and the safety of mechanical dilations. Methods: We retrospectively identified all new cases of EoE at our center from 2015 to 2018 using esophageal biopsy reports, EoE clinic lists, and a local OR database of esophageal dilatations. Electronic medical records (EMRs) were reviewed to confirm EoE diagnosis. Clinical data were captured from the outpatient EMR and gastroscopy/pathology reports. Scope adverse event data were captured from multiple sources. The 2016 census data were used to calculate incidence rates. Results: One hundred eighty-five new cases of EoE were diagnosed during the study period. For patients <15 years old living in Edmonton, the incidence over the 4 years was 11.1 cases per 100,000 person years. Eight of 185 (4%) patients had endoscopically confirmed esophageal strictures, 4 of which required mechanical dilation. Eleven of 185 (5.9%) patients had more subtle signs of esophageal narrowing, but no focal strictures. No perforations or episodes of significant bleeding were reported. Pain was reported after 15% of all scopes, including 50% of the 28 scopes with focal strictures. No unexpected admissions or emergency department visits occurred within 72 hours of a gastroscope with esophageal narrowing. Conclusions: Edmonton zone has one of the highest incidences of pediatric EoE reported. In this cohort, 4% had focal esophageal strictures, and 6% had more subtle narrowing. Mechanical dilation of esophageal strictures was associated with no significant adverse events.
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) | 0.000 | 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".