Acid-Induced Esophageal Shortening in Humans: A Cause for Hiatus Hernia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hiatus hernia and gastroesophageal reflux disease commonly coexist, and there is pathophysiological evidence that the presence of a hiatus hernia contributes to abnormal acid reflux. However, the cause of hiatus hernia remains unclear. In an animal model, it has been shown that acute acid injury to the esophagus results in esophageal shortening, raising the possibility that reflux esophagitis per se can contribute to the formation of hiatus hernia by inducing esophageal shortening. AIM: To determine whether luminal acid produces esophageal shortening in humans. METHODS: Twelve volunteers were each studied on two occasions, one week apart, in a double-blind, crossover trial. The location of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), as well as the LES resting pressure and axial length were determined at baseline and then again after 20 min of either acid or saline perfusion. RESULTS: Acid perfusion did not induce significant changes in resting LES pressure but resulted in proximal migration of the LES (ie, esophageal shortening) by an average of 0.5 cm, with the largest proximal migration being 1.8 cm. In contrast, saline perfusion resulted in slight distal migration of the LES (ie, esophageal lengthening). CONCLUSIONS: Intraluminal acid perfusion causes longitudinal axis shortening of the esophagus and suggests that gastroesophageal acid reflux may contribute to the cause of hiatus hernia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".