Evaluation of the Use of Botulinum Toxin in Children With Achalasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Achalasia is rare in children. Recently, injection of botulinum toxin into the lower esophageal sphincter has been studied as an alternative to esophageal pneumatic dilatation or surgical myotomy as treatment for achalasia. In the current study, the effects of botulinum toxin were investigated in the largest known series of children with achalasia. Methods Treatment for achalasia was assessed in 23 pediatric patients who received botulinum toxin from June 1995 through November 1998. Those who continued to receive botulinum toxin and did not subsequently undergo pneumatic dilatation or surgery were considered repeat responders. Results were compared with those of published studies evaluating the use of botulinum toxin in adults with achalasia. Results Nineteen patients initially responded to botulinum toxin. Mean duration of effect was 4.2 months ± 4.0 (SD). At the end of the study period, three were repeat responders, three experienced dysphagia but did not receive pneumatic dilatation or surgery, three underwent pneumatic dilatation, eight underwent surgery, three underwent pneumatic dilatation with subsequent surgery, and three awaited surgery. Meta‐analysis shows that, in the current study group, the data point expressing time of follow‐up evaluation versus percentage of patients needing one injection session without additional procedures (botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilatation, or surgery) falls within the curve for those in studies on adult patients receiving botulinum toxin for achalasia. Conclusions Botulinum toxin effectively initiates the resolution of symptoms associated with achalasia in children. However, one half of patients are expected to need an additional procedure approximately 7 months after one injection session. The authors recommend that botulinum toxin be used only for children with achalasia who are poor candidates for either pneumatic dilatation or surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".