Results of simulated mastication suggest existence of a periodontogastric motility reflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various reflexes inhibit gastric motor activity. Might a contrary one permit the oral region to increase gastric motility? Ten fasted rats were allowed to feed for 15 min. Following anesthesia and cannula insertion, antral pressure was recorded during three consecutive 5-min intervals: the baseline, procedure, and postprocedure periods. The procedure involved manually lowering and raising the mandible about once per second, causing repetitive molar occlusion. Doing this when food is in the stomach resembles conditions as the latter part of a meal is consumed. Gastric motor events increased from 1.10 +/- 1.67 (mean +/- SD) to 5.50 +/- 4.12 per 5 min during the procedure (p < 0.05) and 5.80 +/- 3.97 in the ensuing period (p < 0.05). The findings suggest an excitatory reflex following stimulation of mechanoreceptors in one or more sites related to mastication: the periodontium, temporomandibular joints, or masticatory muscles. Because rubbing the maxillary molars while the mouth remained constantly open also increased motor events, the periodontium is the most likely location of the receptors. They and associated trigeminal neurons would comprise the reflex's afferent arm. The vagi, perhaps with intermediaries, are its likely efferent arm. In these recently fed rats this reflex acts despite receptive relaxation and enterogastric reflexes to increase distal gastric motor activity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".