The Relationship between Upper Esophageal Sphincter Manometry Function and Esophageal Motility Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-resolution manometry (HRM) provides measures of esophageal function which are used to classify esophageal motility disorders based on the Chicago Classification system. Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) measures are obtained from HRM, but are not included in the classification system, rendering the relationship between UES measures and esophageal motility disorders unclear. Furthermore, changes in the acceptable amount of esophageal dysfunction between versions of this classification system has created controversy. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between UES measures and esophageal function. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Referral centre. METHODS: HRM studies from the Calgary Gut Motility Center were reviewed for UES mean basal pressure, mean residual pressure, relaxation time-to-nadir, relaxation duration, and recovery time. Patients were grouped by number of failed swallows according to different iterations of the Chicago Classification: 0 to 4 (Group 1), 5 to 7 (Group 2), and 8 to 10 (Group 3). RESULTS: 2114 patients (65.1% female, median age 56 y) were included. There were significant increases in UES mean basal pressure (P < .001), mean residual pressure (P < .001), relaxation duration (P < .001), and recovery time (P < .001) between groups. Positive correlations existed between number of failed swallows and UES mean basal pressure (r = 0.143; P < .001), mean residual pressure (r = 0.201; P < .001), relaxation duration (r = 0.145; P < .001), and recovery time (r = 0.168; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in UES measures exist among patients with failed swallows, with a positive correlation between UES dysfunction and increasing dysmotility. Our findings illustrate that UES measures are closely related to esophageal function, and that even minor esophageal dysfunction is related to UES dysfunction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".