Tolerance to gastric distension in patients with functional dyspepsia: modulation by a cholinergic and nitrergic method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with functional dyspepsia (FD), tolerance to gastric fundus distension is frequently compromised. We tested the contribution of contractile cholinergic or relaxing nitrergic pathways in this disorder. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (29 women, 10 men) with FD participated in this study. Gastric distension studies where carried out by inflating a fundic balloon until the maximum distension volume (MDV) tolerated by the patient. Gastric distension was first evaluated in basal control conditions before repeating the test after the injection of anticholinergic hyoscine (Buscopan 20 mg intravenous) or following the administration of nitric oxide donor nitroglycerin (Nitrolingual 1.2 mg sublingual). RESULTS: MDVs were significantly (P<0.01) lower in FD patients (495+/-27 ml) than in controls (995+/-59 ml). Intolerance to fundic distension was found in 77% of dyspepsia patients. Hyoscine improved the threshold for discomfort (343+/-21 versus 421+/-43 ml; P<0.05), as well as the MDV (510+/-36 versus 635+/-44 ml; P<0.01). This drug effect was seen in 71% (10/14) of patients. Nitroglycerin failed to modify thresholds. However, improved tolerance was seen in 15% (2/13) of the patients. CONCLUSION: Intolerance to fundic distension is a frequent finding in FD (77% patients). The cholinergic pathway seems to be a predominant factor involved in tolerance to distension in patients with FD. Fundus-relaxing drugs should be considered for the treatment of dyspepsia.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".