Esophageal Crohn Disease in Children: A Clinical Spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The incidence of esophageal Crohn disease (ECD) in adults ranges from 0.2% to 11.2% and in children is up to 43%. The aim of the study was to determine the clinical and endoscopic spectrum of ECD and its prevalence in our patient population. Methods Chart review of children with Crohn disease (CD). Esophageal Crohn disease was defined by accepted endoscopic and/or histologic findings. Results 210 children with CD were identified; 27 of those children had ECD. Nine children presented with specific upper GI symptoms; dysphagia, heartburn, nausea, vomiting, and odynophagia. Esophagoscopy in children with upper gastrointestinal symptoms revealed deep ulcers (n = 2), aphthous ulcers (n = l), erosions (n = l), edematous nodules, (n = l) and normal mucosa (n = 4). In asymptomatic children aphthous ulcers (n = 5), erosions (n = 3), deep ulcers (n = 3), and normal looking mucosa (n = 7) were seen. Twenty children also had gastric lesions, 3 children had duodenal lesions, and 3 children had both duodenal and gastric involvement. All 27 children had evidence of ileo‐colonic or colonic disease. Acid suppressive medications were given only to children with upper GI symptoms and endoscopic esophageal lesions. The mean duration of follow‐up from diagnosis of CD was 3.02 years (range 2 months—11.7 years). At last follow‐up review, 7 children were receiving acid suppression and no children were receiving steroids. There were no complications related to ECD. Conclusion The prevalence of endoscopic ECD is 7.6% but as many as 17.6% of our patient population had histologic evidence of ECD. The clinical and endoscopic spectrum of ECD are highly variable and poorly correlate with each other.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".