MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282940450 · doi:10.1007/s00455-022-10457-x

10th ESSD Congress, 2020

2022· article· en· W4282940450 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDysphagia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
FundersUniversiteit AntwerpenUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesUniversitetet i OsloMaastricht Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversiteit MaastrichtTrinity College DublinHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsMedicineHepatologyOtorhinolaryngologyInternal medicineFamily medicineGeneral surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Esophageal achalasia is most commonly treated with endoscopic dilation or laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has recently been described as a novel treatment for achalasia in humans. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of POEM for treating esophageal achalasia performed in a single tertiary center within 10 years. Materials and Methods: Between June 2010 and May 2019, POEM was performed in 1140 consecutive patients with achalasia. POEM procedure consisted of the following step: firstly, submucosal tunnel was created and extended below the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) onto the gastric cardia after a mucosal incision was made; then endoscopic myotomy of circular muscle bundles was done; finally, the mucosal entry was closed by hemostatic clips. The Eckardt score and manometry were used to evaluate the outcomes. Results: POEM was successfully performed in 1115 of 1140 cases (97.8%). Mean procedure time was 42.1 min (range 33-86) and mean myotomy length was 9.5 cm (range 7-16). Mucosal perforations occurred in 23 (2%) patients during submucosal tunnel creation, major bleeding occurred in 15 (1.3%) patients, and 29 (2.5%) patients suffered pneumothorax immediate after procedure. All the complications were managed conservatively. During a mean follow-up period of 49.3 months (range 5-89 months), treatment success was achieved in 1005/1140 patients (88.2%). Mean LES pressure was 57.5 mmHg (29.2-83.1) and 15.6 mmHg (5.2-23.1) before and after the procedure (P = 0.000), respectively. Mean Eckardt score was 6.1 (4-11, median 6) and 0.6 (0-3, median 1) before and after POEM, respectively (P = 0.000). In a multivariate analysis, no independent predictor of treatment success was found. 215 patient (18.9%) developed mild reflux symptoms and required intermittent medication with proton pump inhibitors during the follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDysphagiaSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207