MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391873556 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.214

A214 AGE, SEX AND POSITION INFLUENCE UPPER ESOPHAGEAL SPHINCTER PRESSURES

2024· article· en· W4391873556 on OpenAlexaff
K Pokraka, Matthew Woo, Derrick R. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsophageal sphincterPosition (finance)MedicineInternal medicineRefluxEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function may be evaluated using high resolution manometry (HRM) to measure manometric parameters specific to the UES. The UES parameters are not well established however there is evidence suggesting a relationship between the UES parameters and esophageal motility disorders as well as UES parameters and symptoms including dysphagia, globus sensation and reflux. The Esophageal Symptom Questionnaire (ESQ-30) is a validated tool in the assessment of esophageal symptoms and measures the frequency and severity of dysphagia, reflux and globus through three separate sub-scales (ESQ-D, ESQ-R, ESQ-G respectively). Aims We aimed to identify the relationship between UES manometric variables and patient demographic variables (age, sex) as well as patient symptoms including broad categories of globus sensation, dysphagia and reflux. Methods Retrospective analysis of consecutive reports from HRM studies performed between October 2021 – March 2023 who provided consent for inclusion in the motility databank and completed ESQ-30 questionnaires. All values expressed as median (IQR: 25-75-centile). Values were compared with the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Relationships between manometric diagnosis, UES pressures and symptomatology were explored. Results 681 patients underwent esophageal manometry and completed the ESQ-30 questionnaire. These patients were 442 (65%) female (mean age 54.6 +/- 14.8 years). Over the study period, 318 patients underwent esophageal HRM in the upright position and were diagnosed according to CCv3 and 361 patients underwent HRM in the supine position and were diagnosed by CCv4 manometric criteria. UES mean basal pressure was significantly higher in females than males (64.6 [42.3-89.1] vs 68.4 [48.4-96.1], p = .015) as well as in the supine position (77.5 [55.9-101.0] vs. 56.0 [38.7-80.3]. UES mean basal pressure was negatively correlated with age (R2 -.28 p ampersand:003C .001). In terms of esophageal symptomatology, dysphagia scores (ESQ-D) were negatively correlated with UES mean basal pressure (R2 -.15, p ampersand:003C .001). Conclusions Age, sex and position may influence UES manometric pressures. The finding of higher UES pressures in the supine position may reflect a mechanism for decreasing proximal reflux. The decreased UES basal pressure with age is possibly related to changes in the integrity of the neuromuscular system. Having a better understanding of the poorly understood normal UES dynamics and how this changes in motility disorders may allow us to more specifically target areas for treatment. Funding Agencies None

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207