Plasma Leptin Concentrations and Esophageal Hypomotility in Obese Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although esophageal hypomotility is prevalent in obese patients, its cause remains unknown. Leptin, a hormone derived from adipose tissue, may be involved in this phenomenon because it has been shown to decrease gastric and intestinal motility in animals. It has been hypothesized that elevated plasma leptin concentration is a risk factor for esophageal dysmotility in obese patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether plasma leptin concentrations are higher in obese patients with esophageal hypomotility than in obese patients with a normal motility profile. METHOD: Fasting plasma leptin concentration (assessed by radioimmuoassay) was measured in all patients who were included in a study protocol investigating esophageal manometry before bariatric surgery. The patients completed standardized surveys regarding epidemiological data, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, medical history and medication(s). Basal levels of leptin, as well as corrected leptin scores adjusted for sex and body mass index, were compared in patients with and without esophageal dysmotility. RESULTS: Nine patients without dysmotility and eight with dysmotility were included. Both groups were comparable with regard to age (42±9 versus 38±9 years), sex (78% versus 75% women) and body mass index (49±10 kg⁄m2 versus 42±7 kg⁄m2). There were no significant differences regarding medication(s) and comorbidities between the two groups. When compared with normal predicted values, the corrected leptin scores were 30% higher in patients with dysmotility than in the control group with normal motility (P≤0.05). CONLCUSION: Obese patients with esophageal dysmotility exhibited elevated plasma leptin concentrations, suggesting a role for leptin in promoting esophageal hypomotility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".