Measuring esophageal compliance using functional lumen imaging probe to assess remodeling in eosinophilic esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is associated with fibrostenotic remodeling that can be objectively assessed using the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP). This is typically done using a metric called distensibility plateau (DP). We aimed to describe a novel measure of compliance of the esophageal body and evaluate the associated clinical characteristics in EoE. METHODS: One hundred seventy-one adult patients with EoE (mean (SD) age 38 (12) years), 31% female and 35 healthy, asymptomatic controls who completed 16-cm functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) during endoscopy, were evaluated in a cross-sectional study. The esophageal body DP and compliance were measured using a customized analysis program, with compliance calculated as (Δ esophageal body volume)/(Δ pressure) between two FLIP-filled volumes. RESULTS: In controls, the median (5-95th percentile) DP was 19.8 mm (17.9-21) and esophageal body compliance was 0.37 ml/mmHg (0.18-1.1), which was greater than in EoE (DP 19 (11-21)), compliance 0.19 (0.02-0.71), p-values <0.001. Among EoE patients, 70 (41%) had normal compliance (>0.2 ml/mmHg) and normal DP (>17 mm); 11 (6%) had normal compliance and reduced DP; 34 (20%) had reduced compliance and normal DP; and 56 (33%) had reduced compliance and reduce DP. Patients with both reduced compliance and DP had the greatest proportion of severe rings (61% with EREFS score 2-3) and stricture (100%). CONCLUSION: FLIP provides an objective evaluation of biomechanical properties of the esophageal wall that appears enhanced by complementary application of metrics of DP and esophageal body compliance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".