MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S563 The Esophageal Symptom Questionnaire (ESQ-30) May Differentiate Achalasia from EGJ Outflow Obstruction

2023· article· en· W4387749951 on OpenAlexaff
Dain Kim, Prateek Kundapur, Christopher N. Andrews, Milli Gupta, Matthew Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMedicineDysphagiaEsophageal motility disorderRefluxEsophagusGastroenterologyInternal medicineHigh resolution manometrySurgeryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The manometric diagnoses of achalasia and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) are difficult to differentiate based solely on symptoms. The Esophageal Symptom Questionnaire (ESQ-30) is a standardized outcome measure of the frequency and severity esophageal symptoms and contains the following subscales: globus (ESQ-G), dysphagia (ESQ-D), and reflux symptoms (ESQ-R). Our study aims to elucidate the association between manometric diagnosis and symptoms using the ESQ-30. Methods: Between October 2021 - March 2023, 681 patients (54.5 +/- 14.8 y, 65% female) underwent esophageal manometry and had complete ESQ-30 questionnaires: 379 normal, 109 ineffective esophageal motility, 14 jackhammer esophagus, 20 absent contractility, 14 distal esophageal spasm, 97 EGJOO, 48 achalasia (3 achalasia type 1, 41 achalasia type 2, 4 achalasia type 3). A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of manometric diagnosis on ESQ-D, ESQ-G and ESQ-R scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Results: The one-way ANOVA comparing the effect of manometric diagnosis on ESQ-D, globus ESQ-G and reflux ESQ-R scores showed that there was a statistically significant difference between at least 2 groups in globus (F (8,672) = 2.4, P = .015) and dysphagia (F (8,672) = 15.2, P< .01). Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons found that the mean value of ESQ-D was significantly higher in jackhammer esophagus compared to normal motility (mean difference 19.7, P = .03, 95% CI 1.1-38.2). The mean value of the ESQ-D was significantly higher in type 2 achalasia compared to normal (mean difference 33.3, P< .01, 95% CI 22.2-44.5), ineffective esophageal motility (mean difference 31.3, P< .01 95% CI 18.8-43.7), and EGJOO (mean difference 29.3, P< .01, 95% CI 16.6-42.0). The ESQ-D differentiated between patients with achalasia and EGJOO with an AUC of .812 (.74-.88) (Figure 1). Conclusion: This study compared the ESQ-30 scores for dysphagia, globus, and reflux between patients with different esophageal motility disorders including achalasia and EGJOO. The mean dysphagia impact score (ESQ-D) was significantly different when comparing the achalasia group with both the EGJOO and the normal groups. Differentiating achalasia from non-achalasia EGJOO is of key importance as achalasia has definitive therapy, while the clinical significance of non-achalasia EGJOO is less certain. Our findings suggest that standardized patient symptom scores may play a role in discriminating between these 2 conditions.Figure 1.: Receiver Operator Curve Analysis for ESQ-G, ESQ-D, ESQ-R.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→