Regional differences in the response of feline esophageal smooth muscle to stretch and cholinergic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are no objective differences in neural elements that explain regional differences in neural influences along the smooth muscle (SM) esophageal body (EB). Regional differences in muscle properties are present in the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). This study examines whether regional differences in SM properties exist along the EB and are reflected in length-tension relationships and responses to cholinergic excitation. Circular SM strips from feline EB at 1 cm (EB1) and 3 cm (EB3) above LES and from clasp and sling muscle bundles of LES were assessed in normal and calcium-free solutions with and without bethanechol stimulation. Neural inhibition was assessed by electrical field stimulation (EFS). EB3 developed significantly higher tension in response to stretch and to bethanechol than did EB1. The relaxation response to EFS in bethanechol-precontracted strips was less in EB3 than in EB1. In LES, clasp developed higher resting tension than sling but less active tension in response to bethanechol. EFS-induced relaxations of sling and clasp tissues precontracted by bethanechol were not different. In calcium-free solution, length-tension differences between EB3 and EB1 persisted, but those of LES clasp and sling were abolished. Therefore, regional myogenic differences exist in feline EB circular SM as well as in LES and may contribute to the nature of esophageal contraction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".