ReviewBrain research2018
Computational motility models of neurogastroenterology and neuromodulation.
Review in Brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling based insights into mechanical dysfunction in esophageal motility disorders.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Computational models of autonomic regulation in gastric motility: Progress, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Mapping the rest of the human connectome: Atlasing the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system.NeuroImage · 2021Review
- An intravital window to image the colon in real time.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Opportunities and Challenges for Single-Unit Recordings from Enteric Neurons in Awake Animals.Micromachines · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The success of neuromodulation therapies, particularly in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, has been greatly aided by computational, biophysical models. However, treating gastrointestinal disorders with electrical stimulation has been much less explored, partly because the mode of action of such treatments is unclear, and selection of stimulation parameters is often empirical. Progress in gut neuromodulation is limited by the comparative lack of biophysical models capable of simulating neuromodulation of gastrointestinal function. Here, we review the recently developed biophysical models of electrically-active cells in the gastrointestinal system that contribute to motility. Biophysical models are replacing phenomenologically-defined models due to advancements in electrophysiological characterization of key players in the gut: enteric neurons, smooth muscle fibers, and interstitial cells of Cajal. In this review, we explore existing biophysically-defined cellular and network models that contribute to gastrointestinal motility. We focus on recent models that are laying the groundwork for modeling electrical stimulation of the gastrointestinal system. Developing models of gut neuromodulation will improve our mechanistic understanding of these treatments, leading to better parameterization, selectivity, and efficacy of neuromodulation to treat gastrointestinal disorders. Such models may have direct clinical translation to current neuromodulation therapies, such as sacral nerve stimulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.