Investigating Airway Symptoms in Eosinophilic Esophagitis ( <scp>EoE</scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic delay of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is significant, and efforts are needed to raise awareness and reduce prolonged symptoms and complications. Airway and swallowing symptoms often overlap, especially in children, complicating diagnosis and increasing delays. This study aims to report the range of airway presentations in pediatric EoE patients and identify independent predictors of an EoE diagnosis in patients with aerodigestive symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of pediatric patients < 7 years with histologically confirmed EoE managed in an aerodigestive clinic at a tertiary pediatric center. Variables included demographics, atopic comorbidities, risk factors, airway and dysphagia symptoms, and adaptive eating behaviors. EoE cases were age-matched to controls with aerodigestive issues and no EoE. Multivariate regression analysis identified independent predictors of EoE. RESULTS: Fifty EoE patients were included, along with 50 controls. The mean age was 2.4 years, with 70% male. Common EoE symptoms included solid food dysphagia (62%), food pocketing (62%), and self-reported food allergies (72%). Airway symptoms included chronic cough (38%) and choking (32%). Multivariate analysis identified food allergy (OR 15.7) and food pocketing (OR 11.81) as independent predictors, while dysphagia with liquids (OR 0.058) and recurrent pneumonia (OR 0.022) were negative predictors. CONCLUSION: Airway symptoms in pediatric EoE can overlap with other conditions, complicating diagnosis. Key features such as adaptive eating behavior and food allergies should raise suspicion for EoE.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".