Utility of gastroesophageal reflux study (GER) to assess for abnormal gastric emptying in comparison to the dedicated standardized gastric emptying study (GE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1291 Objectives: The association between delayed gastric emptying and the presence of gastroesophageal reflux in the pediatric population has been reported in the literature. Radionuclide scintigraphy using 99m-Tc phytate colloid has been known as a useful procedure for the diagnosis of impaired gastric function in children. The aim of this study is to determine if the values from the percent emptying calculated as part of a gastroesophageal reflux study (GER) are comparable to the value determined using a dedicated standardized gastric emptying study (GE). Methods: 99 patients were retrospectively investigated from 2003-2006. All patients were referred by a pediatrician. Indication for the test included early satiety, vomiting, chest infection, as well as patients with cystic fibrosis. All 99 patients underwent the standardized GE study followed by a GER study performed within a few days time. The percent gastric emptying was determined at 90 minutes for the GE study and compared to the percent emptying done at 60 minutes for the reflux study. Results: A P value of 0.003 was obtained for the two test results when classifying them simply as “normal” vs “abnormal” using a 50% cut off as abnormal. There was a large range of variability of the results in 80 patients who were classified as either normal or abnormal by either test. There was 20% discordance with a normal result on one test and an abnormal result on the other test. Few normal results were obtained with the calculated gastric emptying from the reflux study. Conclusions: The GER study is not as accurate a method to determine gastric emptying compared to standardized gastric emptying study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".