A135 DO VISCOUS SWALLOWS IMPROVE THE DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF HIGH-RESOLUTION MANOMETRY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Esophageal motility disorders are diagnosed using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HR-EMS) using the Chicago Classification (CC V4.0) which is based on a series of 10 normal saline swallows (LS). Viscous swallows (VS; thickened liquid/applesauce) are often performed during esophageal manometry; however, they were not included within the framework of CC V4.0. Previous literature has suggested inconsistency between LS and VS in up to 25% of studies, yet it remains unclear whether routine use of VS offers any benefit to LS alone in diagnosing manometric abnormalities according to the CC V4.0. Aims To determine if the routine use of VS improves the diagnostic yield in HR-EMS Methods A retrospective analysis of all HR-EMS studies performed between December 2020 and July 2021 at Kingston Health Sciences Centre was completed. Demographic information including age, sex, indication for HR-EMS, surgical history, and chronic narcotic use was documented. Each study (consisting of 10 LS and 10 VS) was reviewed independently by a Gastroenterology Fellow and Neurogastroenterologist. A manometric diagnosis using CC V4.0 was made for both LS and VS. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results A total of 101 HR-EMS studies were reviewed (33 male, 68 female, age range 26 to 90 years). The most common indication for HR-EMS was dysphagia (87/101) with 23/101 having 2 indications, 30/101 having 3 indications, and 43/101 patients having >3 indications. Prior upper GI tract surgery and chronic narcotic use was recorded in 9/101 and 8/101 patients, respectively. Two HR-EMS studies were excluded due to incomplete protocol. In total, 38.4% (38/99) had normal HR-EMS for both LS and VS. LS and VS that resulted in a CC V4.0 diagnosis were concordant in 37.4%(37/99) and discordant in 24.2% (24/99). Of the 24 discordant studies, 6 had a CC V4.0 diagnosis for LS (4 esophagogastric outflow obstruction (EGJOO), 1 ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), 1 diffuse esophageal spasm) and normal VS. Ten studies had normal LS and a CC V4.0 diagnosis for VS (9 IEM, 1 EGJOO). Eight had differing CC V4.0 diagnoses for LS and VS. Conclusions LS and VS resulted in concordant diagnoses in the majority of cases. However, there were discordant results in approximately 25% of cases. In nearly half of these studies, the LS was within normal limits whereas VS yielded a diagnosis of an esophageal motility disorder which may be of clinical significance to the patient’s management. The addition of VS to HR-EMS protocol may increase diagnostic yield in symptomatic patients. 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 | 0.014 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".