Practice patterns for eosinophilic esophagitis vary widely among Canadian gastroenterologists: a nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic, type 2, immune-mediated condition of the oesophagus, resulting in dysmotility and oesophageal stricturing. This study aims to identify practice variation among Canadian gastroenterologists treating adults with EoE. Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was distributed to Canadian gastroenterologists through the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and administrations of Canadian universities. Results: Seventy gastroenterologists completed the survey, with 59% working in academic practice or research. Overall, 90% of gastroenterologists require histological evidence of EoE to establish a diagnosis of EoE, while 50% require clinical symptoms of oesophageal dysfunction; 39% of gastroenterologists take less than 5 biopsies when assessing for EoE, with variability in biopsy location. Only 51% of respondents took biopsies in every case presenting with acute food bolus. Proton pump inhibitors were the initial therapy of 70% of gastroenterologists, with 11% using topical steroids. The preferred dietary approach was the 6-food elimination diet in 36%, followed by the 2-food elimination diet in 26%. Overall, 27% of participants did not use histologic improvement and 63% did not use endoscopic improvement to evaluate treatment response. Use of EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) is low, with 56% being either unaware of what EREFS is or never using it. Most respondents feel Canadian guidelines would be helpful in their practice. Conclusions: Eosinophilic esophagitis practice patterns among Canadian gastroenterologists are variable and differ from consensus guidelines. The development of Canadian guidelines and continuing medical education content can be considered to improve the management of EoE in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".