Relationships between motor patterns and intraluminal pressure in the 3-taeniated proximal colon of the rabbit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manometry is used worldwide to assess motor function of the gastrointestinal tract, and the measured intraluminal pressure patterns are usually equated with contraction patterns. In the colon, simultaneous pressure increases throughout the entire colon are most often called simultaneous contractions, although this inference has never been verified. To evaluate the relationship between pressure and contraction in the colon we performed high-resolution manometry and measured diameter changes reflecting circular muscle contractions in the rabbit colon. We show that within a certain range of contraction amplitudes and frequencies, the intraluminal pressure pattern faithfully resembles the contraction pattern. However, when the frequency is very high (as in fast propagating contractions in a cluster) the consequent intraluminal pressures merge. When the contraction speed of propagation is very fast (above ~5 cm/s), the resulting pressure occurs simultaneous throughout the colon; hence simultaneous pressure is measured as are caused by fast propagating contractions. The very slow propagating, low amplitude haustral boundary contractions show a very characteristic pattern in spatiotemporal contraction maps that is not faithfully reproduced in the pressure maps. Correct interpretation of pressure events in high-resolution manometry is essential to make it a reliable tool for diagnosis and management of patients with colon motor dysfunction.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".