Vagus nerve stimulation in bursts can efficiently modulate gastric contractions and contraction frequency at varying gastric pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective There has been recent clinical interest in the use of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for treating gastrointestinal disorders as an alternative to drugs or gastric electrical stimulation. However, effectiveness of burst stimulation has not been demonstrated. We investigated the ability of bursting and continuous VNS to influence gastric and pyloric activity under a range of stimulation parameters and gastric pressures. The goals of this study were to determine which parameters could optimally excite or inhibit gastric activity. Materials and Methods Data were collected from 21 Sprague–Dawley rats. Under urethane anesthesia, a rubber balloon was implanted into the stomach, connected to a pressure transducer and a saline infusion pump. A pressure catheter was inserted at the pyloric sphincter and a bipolar nerve cuff was implanted onto the left cervical vagus nerve. The balloon was filled to 15 cmH2O. Stimulation trials were conducted in a consistent order; the protocol was then repeated at 25 and 35 cmH2O. The nerve was then transected and stimulation repeated to investigate directionality of effects. Results Bursting stimulation at the bradycardia threshold caused significant increases in gastric contraction amplitude with entrainment to the bursting frequency. Some continuous stimulation trials could also cause increased contractions but without frequency changes. Few significant changes were observed at the pylorus, except for frequency entrainment. These effects could not be uniquely attributed to afferent or efferent activity. Significance Our findings further elucidate the effects of different VNS parameters on the stomach and pylorus and provide a basis for future studies of bursting stimulation for gastric neuromodulation.
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".