Effect of Electroacupuncture at "Zusanli" (ST 36) on Lower Esophageal Sphincter in the cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective]To observe the impact of Zusanli point(st 36) electro-acupuncture(EA) on the pressure of lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) of cats and to discuss the relationship between Zusanli point(st 36) and esophageal motility regulation.[Methods]After endoscope examination,28 cats were confirmed as healthy ones without esophagitis.All experimental cats were randomly divided into two groups:the Zusanli point(st 36) group and the non-channels non-collaterals points group.The LESP were measured and recorded by applying E-7-1-1-1-2-5-5-5 type 8 Channel Fine Infusion Piezometric Tube (Canada) and UPS-2020 type Esophageal Pressure Measurement System (Netherlands).[Results]The LESP of Zusanli point(st 36) group and non-channels non-collaterals points group rose significantly under and after EA than that of before EA.In Zusanli point(st 36) group,the LESP increased from(16.21±5.49)mmHg to(23.14±8.81)mmHg (P0.01) during EA and reached(25.5±6.73)mmHg (P0.01) after EA.In non-channels non-collaterals points group,the LESP increased from(15.64±3.61)mmHg to(18.93±5.57)mmHg (P0.01) during EA and reached(20.43±5.24)mmHg (P0.01) after EA.The degree of LESP increase in Zusanli point(st 36) group was apparently greater than that of the non-channels non-collaterals points group (P0.05).[Conclusion]EA on Zusanli point (st 36) of healthy cats can cause obvious LESP rising and lead to wholesome regulation on LES.However,the mechanism remains unclear and need further studies.
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".