MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative gastric motility study of EnterraTM Therapy and neural gastric electrical stimulation in an acute canine model

2010· article· en· W1527829107 on OpenAlexafffund
Alvaro Arriagada, Alexander S. Jurkov, Emil Neshev, Greg Muench, Martin P. Mintchev, Christopher N. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGastroparesisStimulationStomachElectrodeLumen (anatomy)Biomedical engineeringFunctional electrical stimulationMedicineMaterials scienceGastric emptyingInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207