Eosinophilic Esophagitis: real-life outcomes over 10 years in a Canadian pediatric centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Despite Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) being a chronic condition, many studies focus on the short-term. This study characterizes patients, treatment effectiveness and outcomes in a pre-biologic era. Methods This cohort study (2012–2022) at British Columbia (BC) Children's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada analyzed data from the EoE Registry which was hosted on Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) for participating patients <18 years with biopsy-proven diagnosis (≥15 eosinophils/hpf) including demographics, symptoms, allergic history, medications, endoscopy and histology. Results 247 patients (71.2% White, 16.7% South Asian, 78.1% male, median age 9 years) were followed over a median 3-year follow up. 85.2% had at least one atopic condition and 17.4% reported Cow's Milk Protein Allergy in infancy. 19.0% lacked follow up endoscopy and in clinic follow-up, 18.2% were on no therapy. At last endoscopy of those on treatment ( n = 200), 39.0% used swallowed topical corticosteroids (50.0% remission), 23.0% proton pump inhibitors (29.0% remission), and 39.0% elimination diets (34.0% remission). Over half on medications had imperfect adherence. Overall, 39.0% achieved remission (<15 eosinophils/hpf), (mean peak eosinophils decreased from 55 to 27/hpf, strictures from 7.5% to 2.7%). Conclusions This Canadian study reveals remission rates lower than short term studies, but a reduction in strictures in follow-up. Real-life challenges, such as not returning for follow up endoscopy (∼20%), despite no direct care costs, challenges with adherence with ∼20% not taking any therapy and over half not taking medications as prescribed contribute towards remission rates below 50% regardless of treatment. Better patient engagement, addressing barriers to treatment and follow up and exploring novel therapies are needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".