Gastric Emptying of Solid Food in Edentulous Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether mastication of food by teeth is a physiological contributor in the process of nutrient digestion remains a debatable issue. In this study we sought to determine whether mastication could influence the gastric emptying of solid food. In 8 edentulous patients, we measured the gastric emptying of a test meal ingested with or without their dental prostheses. Clinical dental evaluation and Helkimo chewing test were first performed to verify that the mastication deficiency was adequately corrected by the dental prostheses. A mixed meal containing ten cubes (1.5 cm) of beef liver labeled with 99mTc and mixed in a chicken stew was ingested by the subjects and followed by gamma camera external scintigraphy. The gastric emptying rate of the 99mTc-labeled liver was similar whether the meal was ingested with the denture properly inserted, allowing normal mastication of the liver cubes, or whether the food was swallowed unmasticated in the absence of functional prostheses (Tlag = 60 +/- 5 vs. 58 +/- 11 min, p = NS; T1/2 = 73 +/- 21 vs. 55 +/- 10 min, p = NS; Tlag+T1/2 = 133 +/- 19 vs. 114 +/- 17 min, p = NS). These results show that gastric trituration and emptying of solid food was not facilitated by prior mastication.
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 | 0.001 | 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".