Comparative gastric motility study of EnterraTM Therapy and neural gastric electrical stimulation in an acute canine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an avenue for treating gastroparesis and obesity by controlling gastric motility using electrically mediated gastric contractions. Neural gastrointestinal electrical stimulation (NGES) is a GES modality capable of producing strong lumen-occluding local gastric contractions. Conversely, Enterra ™ Therapy, a commercial implantable gastric electrical stimulator, has been utilized to treat symptoms of gastroparesis, but its nominal electrical parameters are not capable of generating lumen-occluding contractions. However, comparative studies between these two stimulation modalities are lacking. METHODS: Strain gauge transducers complemented by endoscopic monitoring have been utilized to register gastric contractions invoked with NGES and Enterra neurostimulators in four acute dogs. Mucosal and serosal electrode implantations, 'nominal' and 'maximum' electrical parameters, and longitudinal and transverse electrode placements have been tested with each neurostimulator type. KEY RESULTS: Strong lumen-occluding, circumferential contractions were induced with a wide variety of NGES parameters utilizing both transverse and longitudinal electrode configurations from the serosal side of the stomach. Similarly, local gastric contractions were observed with the Enterra neurostimulator programmed at its 'maximum' electrical parameters but only when utilizing transverse serosal electrode implantation. Under 'maximum' electrical parameters Enterra was not capable of producing registerable gastric contractions with longitudinally implanted serosal electrodes. Mucosal electrode implantations did not result in GES-invoked gastric contractions in both stimulation modalities. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Enterra Therapy is capable of producing gastric contractions under 'maximum' parameters and transverse electrode configuration. Neural gastrointestinal electrical stimulation produces stronger, lumen-occluding contractions under a wider range of electrode configurations and parameters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".