Autonomic Evaluation of Patients With Gastroparesis and Neurostimulation: Comparisons of Direct/Systemic and Indirect/Cardiac Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disorders of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and related problems often are manifestations of gastrointestinal, neuromuscular, and/or autonomic dysfunction. Many of these patients respond to neurostimulation, either gastric electrical stimulation or electroacupuncture. Both of these therapeutic techniques appear to influence the autonomic nervous system which can be evaluated directly by traditional testing and indirectly by heart rate variability. METHODS: We studied patients undergoing gastric neuromodulation by both systemic autonomic testing (39 patients, six males and 33 females, mean age 38 years) and systemic autonomic testing and heart rate variability (35 patients, seven males and 28 females, mean age 37 years) testing before and after gastric neuromodulation. We also performed a pilot study using both systemic autonomic testing and heart rate variability in a small number of patients (five patients, all females, mean age 48.6 years) with diabetic gastroparesis at baseline to compare the two techniques at baseline. Systemic autonomic testing and heart rate variability were performed with standardized techniques and gastric electrical stimulation was performed as previously described with electrodes implanted serosally in the myenteric plexus. RESULTS: Both systemic autonomic testing and heart rate variability measures were often abnormal at baseline and showed changes after gastric neuromodulation therapy in two groups of symptomatic patients. Pilot data on a small group of similar patients with systemic automatic nervous measures and heart rate variability showed good concordance between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Both traditional direct autonomic measures and indirect measures such as heart rate variability were evaluated, including a pilot study of both methods in the same patient group. Both appear to be useful in evaluation of patients at baseline and after stimulation therapies; however, a future full head-to-head comparison is warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".