Comparison of human and porcine gastric clasp and sling fiber contraction by M<sub>2</sub>and M<sub>3</sub>muscarinic receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the gastroesophageal junction of the human with the pig, M(2) and M(3) receptor densities and the potencies of M(2) and M(3) muscarinic receptor subtype selective antagonists were determined in gastric clasp and sling smooth muscle fibers. Total muscarinic and M(2) receptors are higher in pig than human clasp and sling fibers. M(3) receptors are higher in human compared with pig sling fibers but lower in human compared with pig clasp fibers. Clasp fibers have fewer M(3) receptors than sling fibers in both humans and pigs. Similar to human clasp fibers, pig clasp fibers contract significantly less than pig sling fibers. Analysis of the methoctramine Schild plot suggests that M(2) receptors are involved in mediating contraction in pig clasp and sling fibers. Darifenacin potency suggests that M(3) receptors mediate contraction in pig sling fibers and that M(2) and M(3) receptors mediate contraction in pig clasp fibers. Taken together, the data suggest that both M(2) and M(3) muscarinic receptors mediate the contraction in both pig clasp and sling fibers similar to human clasp and sling fibers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".