Gastric Electrical Stimulation in Intractable Symptomatic Gastroparesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of gastroparesis remains unsatisfactory despite prokinetic and anti-emetic drugs. Gastric electrical stimulation has been proposed as a therapeutic option. We have assessed the effect of gastric electrical stimulation on symptoms, medical treatment, body weight and gastric emptying in patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis in a non-placebo-controlled study. METHODS: In this multicenter study, 38 highly symptomatic patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis were enrolled. Patients first received temporary electrical stimulation using percutaneous electrodes. The 33 responders to temporary stimulation then underwent surgical implantation of a permanent stimulator. Severity of vomiting and nausea was assessed before and after stimulation. Patients were reassessed 3, 6, and 12 months after permanent implantation. RESULTS: With stimulation, 35/38 patients (97%) experienced >80% reduction in vomiting and nausea. This effect persisted throughout the observation period (2.9-15.6 months, 341 patient-months). Gastric emptying did not initially change, but improved in most patients at 12 months. At 1 year, the average weight gain was 5.5% and 9/14 patients initially receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition were able to discontinue it. CONCLUSION: Electrical stimulation of the stomach has an immediate and potent anti-emetic effect. It offers a safe and effective alternative for patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".