Effect of GutsyGum<sup>tm</sup>, A Novel Gum, on Subjective Ratings of Gastro Esophageal Reflux Following A Refluxogenic Meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chewing gum alleviates symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) following a refluxogenic meal. GutsyGum(tm), a chewing gum developed to alleviate the symptoms of GER contains calcium carbonate, with a proprietary blend of licorice extract, papain, and apple cider vinegar (GiGs®). The efficacy of GutsyGum(tm) was determined in alleviating the symptoms of GER after a refluxogenic meal compared to placebo gum. This double-blind, placebo-controlled-crossover trial with a one-week washout between treatments had 24 participants with a history of GER consume a refluxogenic meal and then chew GutsyGum(tm) or placebo gum. Participants completed GER symptom questionnaires, consisting of symptom based 10 cm Visual Analogue Scales, immediately following the meal and then at regular intervals out to four hours postmeal. Adjusted mean ± SEM heartburn score (15-min postmeal to 240 min) was significantly lower in GutsyGum(tm) than in placebo gum treatment (0.81 ± 0.20 vs. 1.45 ± 0.20 cm; p = 0.034). Mean acid reflux score was significantly lower in GutsyGum(tm) than in placebo treatment (0.72 ± 0.19 vs. 1.46 ± 0.19 cm; p = 0.013). There were no significant differences for any of the secondary outcomes. However, pain approached significance with less pain reported in GutsyGum(tm) versus placebo treatment (0.4 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 cm; p = 0.081). Although nausea (p = 0.114) and belching (p = 0.154) were lower following GutsyGum(tm), the difference was not statistically significant. GutsyGum(tm) is more effective than a placebo gum in alleviating primary symptoms of heartburn and acid reflux (Clinical Trial Registration: ACTRN12612000973819).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".