Effect of Different Recumbent Positions on Postprandial Gastroesophageal Reflux in Normal Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is increased in the right compared to the left recumbent position. Esophageal acid exposure is related to the acidity at the cardia, but the effect of body position on the acidity at the cardia has not yet been investigated. We aimed to investigate the mechanisms underlying increased esophageal acid exposure in the right recumbent position. METHODS: On 2 separate days a 4-h combined esophageal and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) manometry and pH recording of esophagus, gastric cardia, and corpus was performed in the right and left recumbent position after a high fat meal in 10 healthy subjects. RESULTS: In the right recumbent position a prolonged esophageal acid exposure (7.0% vs 2.0%, p < 0.03), a higher incidence of reflux episodes (3.8 vs 0.9/h, p < 0.03), more transient LES relaxations (TLESRs) (6.5 vs 3.2/h, p < 0.03), and higher percentage TLESRs associated with reflux (57.0% vs 22.4% p < 0.03) was recorded than in the left supine position. Acidity at gastric cardia and corpus was not affected by body position. CONCLUSIONS: Increased esophageal acid exposure in the right recumbent position relative to the left recumbent position is the result of a higher incidence of GER episodes caused by an increased incidence of TLESRs and higher percentage of TLESRs associated with GER. Body position does not affect the acidity at the gastric cardia and corpus.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".