MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

15
The effect of Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES) electrical stimulation on LES pressure

2006· article· en· W1980829840 on OpenAlexaff
CP SANMIGUEL, Masanobu Hagiike, MP MINTCHEV, R DELA CRUZ, Edward H Phillips, Scott A. Cunneen, JL Conklin, E. E. Soffer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulationPeristalsisMedicineAnesthesiaAtropineAcepromazinePulse (music)EsophagusSurgeryInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart ratePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Electrical stimulation (ES) of the stomach has been shown to modulate LESP. Electrical stimulation, using neural high frequency stimulation (NGES) can induce contractions of the smooth muscle of the gut. The purpose of this study was to determine if electrical stimulation of the LES can affect LESP. Methods: Four female hound dogs, weight: 20–25 kg, underwent an esophagostomy that allowed the introduction of a sleeve manometry catheter into the esophagus. They were also implanted with a pair of electrodes along the longitudinal axis of the LES. After 3 weeks of recovery, they underwent esophageal manometry recording during control and ES, performed randomly on separate days, using 4 different stimulations: 1‐Low frequency: freq: 6 cycles/min, pulse: 350 milisec, amp: 5 mAmp; 2 High‐frequency: freq: 50 Hz, pulse: 1 milisec, amp: 5 mAmp; 3‐ NGES: freq: 50 Hz, pulse:20 milisec, amp:10 volts; 4‐ High‐frequency, circular: freq: 20 Hz, pulse:1 milisec, amp:5 mAmp. All recordings were performed 1 hour after consumption of 3 ounces of canned dog food, to prevent fluctuations in LESP and under mild sedation (acepromazine 0.5 mg kg­1). Tests consisted, during ES days, of 3 periods of 20 minutes each: control , stimulation and post stimulation. The effect of NGES was also tested under anesthesia and following administration of L‐NAME 50 mg kg­1 IV. and also atropine 0.05 mg kg­1 IV. Analysis: area under the curve (AUC) and pressure were compared among the 3 periods. Data shown as mean ± SD, ANOVA and t‐test, p < 0.05. Results: Sustained increase in LESP was observed during low frequency stimulation, 32.1 ± 12.8 vs. 42.4 ± 18.0 vs. 50.1 ± 23.6, control vs. stimulation vs. post stimulation respectively, p = 0.013. AUC also significantly increased during and after stimulation, 39,320.3 ± 15,722 vs. 51,294 ± 21,826 vs. 59,823.6 ± 28,198.4 mmHgxsec, control vs. stimulation vs. post stimulation respectively, p = 0.01. There was no significant change with other types of ES. NGES induced an initial rise in LESP followed within few seconds by relaxation with slow resumption of pressure over a 1 minute period. L‐NAME increased LESP and augmented the initial rise in LESP following NGES but markedly diminished or abolished the relaxation phase. Atropine lowered LESP and abolished the initial rise in LESP induced by NGES. Conclusions: Low frequency ES of the LES increases LESP in conscious dogs. NGES has dual effect on LESP: an initial stimulation, cholinergically mediated, followed by relaxation mediated by nitric oxide.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207