Esophageal Transit, Contraction and Perception of Transit After Swallows of Two Viscous Boluses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been results showing the influence of bolus viscosities and consistency on esophageal motility and transit. However, there is no description about the influence of two different viscous boluses on esophageal contractions, bolus transit and perception of transit. Our objective in this investigation was to evaluate the esophageal transit and contraction after swallows of two viscous boluses. METHODS: By impedance and manometric methods, we measured the esophageal transit and contraction after swallows of two viscous boluses of 5 mL volume, 100% barium sulfate and yogurt, swallowed in duplicate in the supine and upright positions. The bolus transit, esophageal contractions and the perception of bolus transit through the esophagus were evaluated in both positions. Impedance and contraction were measured at 5, 10, 15 and 20 cm from the lower esophageal sphincter. After each swallow, the volunteers were asked about the sensation of bolus transit through the esophagus. RESULTS: In supine position, the yogurt had a less frequent complete bolus transit than barium. Also in the supine position, the esophageal transit was longer with yogurt than with barium. Esophageal contractions after swallows were similar between barium and yogurt boluses. There was no difference in perception of transit between the two boluses. CONCLUSION: Although both 100% barium sulfate and yogurt are viscous boluses and have similar viscosities, the transit through the esophagus is slower with yogurt bolus than with barium bolus, which suggests that viscosity may be not the sole factor to determine transit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".