MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241699558 · doi:10.1136/gut.2009.208983v

PWE-078 Intragastric ph holding time of pH <4 predicts low erosive esophagitis healing rate

2010· article· en· W4241699558 on OpenAlexaff
Yuhong Yuan, R H Hunt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsomeprazoleRegimenGastroenterologyEsophagitisInternal medicineChemistryReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We have previously proposed a linear relationship between the degree and duration of suppression of 24-h intragastric acidity and the healing rate of erosive esophagitis (EE) with the best predictor as per cent time pH ≥4. Poor response to PPI is an increasingly important concern. Simply reporting time pH <4 may not reflect the extent of acid exposure because of the log scale of pH (1 unit pH change is a 10-fold change in [H+ ion] and a 100-fold increase if pH falls from 4 to 2). Indeed, in healthy volunteers ∼40% of the 24-h is pH ≤4 after 5 days esomeprazole 40 mg om and pH is <2 for 42% of the time between midnight and 0700.1 We aimed to investigate the relationship of time pH <4 in the 24-h and the EE healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks with antisecretory drugs, since time pH <4 is the only widely available pH parameter. Methods A meta-analysis was performed to provide 24-h intragastric pH values at steady state (day 5–8) in healthy volunteers and the EE healing rate at 4 or 8 weeks, by searching the English-language literature up to June 2009 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. For pH data, a weighted mean is only possible by using the sample size of each arm ((mean×n from each study)/Σ treated N). A regimen was excluded if <20 subjects provided pH data. For EE data, the pooled healing rate was calculated by weighting the sample size (random effect model) using StatsDirect®2.6.3. Here also a regimen was excluded if <30 subjects per arm provided EE data. Standard linear regression was performed by SPSS® 17.0, with the pooled EE healing rate at 4 weeks or 8 weeks as the dependent variable and mean per cent time pH <4 in 24-h of the corresponding treatment regimen as the independent variable. Result 95 studies (411 arms) provided intragastric pH data and 109 studies (243 arms) provided EE healing data for 3 H2-RAs, 5 PPIs and placebo. The commonly reported pH parameter in the pH-EE model was mean per cent time pH <4, which was used in the model. At 4 weeks, the model for the EE (all grades) healing rate = 110.52−1.01* mean per cent time pH <4 in 24 h (R=0.862, p<0.001). At 8 weeks. The model for EE (all grades) healing rate=124.88−1.02* mean per cent time pH <4 in 24 h (R=0.887, p<0.001). Conclusion Any increase in the time intragastric pH is pH <4 in the 24 h at steady state in healthy volunteers is associated with a decrease in the EE healing rate at 4 and 8 weeks. The per cent time that intragastric pH <4 is a significant predictor for EE non-healing. Although, not usually reported, a better predictor is likely to be the time pH is <3 or better pH <2, especially during the night-time period.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.008
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207