MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405561179 · doi:10.1016/j.vgie.2024.10.001

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the diagnosis and management of GERD: methodology and review of evidence

2024· article· en· W4405561179 on OpenAlex
Madhav Desai, Wenly Ruan, Nirav Thosani, Manuel A. Amaris, James S. Scott, Ahmed Saeed, Barham K. Abu Dayyeh, Marcia Irene Canto, Wasif M. Abidi, Omeed Alipour, Stuart K. Amateau, Natalie Cosgrove, Sherif Elhanafi, Nauzer Forbes, Divyanshoo R. Kohli, Richard S. Kwon, Larissa L. Fujii‐Lau, Jorge D. Machicado, Neil B. Marya, Saowanee Ngamruengphong, Swati Pawa, Sunil G. Sheth, Nikhil R. Thiruvengadam, Bashar Qumseya

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVideoGIE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAmerican Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineGERDMedical physicsIntensive care medicinePathologyDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to diagnose and manage GERD. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and serves as an update to the prior ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of GERD (2014). The updated guideline addresses the indications for endoscopy in patients with GERD, including patients who have undergone sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). It also discusses endoscopic evaluation of gastroesophageal junctional integrity comprehensively and uniformly. Important, this guideline discusses management strategies for GERD including lifestyle interventions, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and endoscopic antireflux therapy including transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF), radiofrequency energy, and TIF combined with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF). The ASGE recommends upper endoscopy for the evaluation of GERD in patients with alarm symptoms. The ASGE suggests upper endoscopy for symptomatic patients with a history of SG and POEM. The ASGE recommends careful endoscopic evaluation, reporting, and photo-documentation of objective GERD findings and gastroesophageal junction landmarks and integrity to improve patient care and outcomes. In patients with GERD symptoms, the ASGE recommends lifestyle modifications. In patients with symptomatic and confirmed GERD with predominant heartburn symptoms, the ASGE recommends medical management including PPIs at the lowest dose for the shortest duration while initiating discussion about long-term management options. In patients with confirmed GERD with small hiatal hernia (≤2 cm) and Hill grade I or II flap valve who meet specific criteria, the ASGE suggests evaluation for TIF as an alternative to long-term medical management. In patients with confirmed GERD with a large hiatal hernia (>2 cm) and Hill grade 3 or 4 flap valve, the ASGE suggests evaluation for combined endoscopic-surgical TIF (cTIF) in a multidisciplinary review. This document clearly outlines the methodology, analysis, and decision used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.154 · 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