MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Manipulation of food intake and weight dynamics using retrograde neural gastric electrical stimulation in a chronic canine model

2007· article· en· W2069680804 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Aelen, Emil Neshev, Marie‐Claude Cholette, Kim C. Crisanti, P. R. Mitchell, Estifanos Debru, Nicholas T Church, Martin P. Mintchev

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulationMedicineAntrumStomachFood intakeObesityWeight lossBody weightImplantGastroenterologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural gastric electrical stimulation (NGES) could be a new technique for treating obesity. However, chronic animal experimentation exploring the efficacy of this therapy is lacking. In this study we investigated the utility of retrograde NGES in a chronic canine model. Nine mongrel dogs (26.8 +/- 5.2 kg) underwent laparoscopic implantation of 2-channel neurostimulator leads in the distal antrum. Five dogs formed a control group and four dogs underwent stimulation. Food intake and weight dynamics were regularly monitored during two separate research protocols, each comprising 2-week baseline, stimulation and washout periods. The stimulation voltage was constant in the first protocol and was ramped in the second. In the first protocol three out of the four stimulated dogs demonstrated significant decrease in food intake (P < 0.05). However, this materialized in a significant weight reduction in one dog only. In the second protocol, all stimulated dogs exhibited significant food intake and weight reduction (P < 0.05) compared to controls. Necropsies and histopathological analysis did not reveal any abnormalities in the stomach, the adjacent organs or around the implant. NGES could be a safe new technique for reducing food intake and weight and, therefore, it might be helpful for treating obesity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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