Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms not Responding to Proton Pump Inhibitor: GERD, NERD, NARD, Esophageal Hypersensitivity or Dyspepsia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is a common gastrointestinal process that can generate symptoms of heartburn and chest pain. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the gold standard for the treatment of GER; however, a substantial group of GER patients fail to respond to PPIs. In the past, it was believed that acid reflux into the esophagus causes all, or at least the majority, of symptoms attributed to GER, with both erosive esophagitis and nonerosive outcomes. However, with modern testing techniques it has been shown that, in addition to acid reflux, the reflux of nonacid gastric and duodenal contents into the esophagus may also induce GER symptoms. It remains unknown how weakly acidic or alkaline refluxate with a pH similar to a normal diet induces GER symptoms. Esophageal hypersensitivity or functional dyspepsia with superimposed heartburn may be other mechanisms of symptom generation, often completely unrelated to GER. Detailed studies investigating the pathophysiology of esophageal hypersensitivity are not conclusive, and definitions of the various disease states may overlap and are often confusing. The authors aim to clarify the pathophysiology, definition, diagnostic techniques and medical treatment of patients with heartburn symptoms who fail PPI therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".