MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984512990 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.155366

Multicenter Validation of a Shortened Gastric-Emptying Protocol

2015· article· en· W1984512990 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Pelletier‐Galarneau, Oyebola O. Sogbein, Xuan Pham, Jason Jishun Hao, Jenna Le, Mark D. Strober, Michael L. Middleton, Janusz Kikut, Leonărd M. Freeman, Lionel S. Zuckier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGastric emptyingProtocol (science)Multicenter studyMedicineInternal medicineStomachPathologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Gastric emptying scintigraphy is considered to be the gold standard for detection of gastroparesis and other disorders of gastric motility; Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging guidelines are predicated on imaging over a period of 4 h, which is inconvenient for patients. Bonta et al. introduced 2-h criteria, which served to shorten the protocol in most patients, with negligible loss of accuracy. We have evaluated the Bonta criteria in a larger multicenter trial encompassing 4 academic institutions. METHODS: Retrospective data from 4 academic medical centers were aggregated; 431 patients were included, 105 (24.4%) of whom demonstrated delayed gastric emptying defined by 4-h gastric retention of more than 10%. Bonta criteria (retention > 65% is considered abnormal and < 45% normal; otherwise, proceed to complete examination) were applied to the 2-h data. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and resource use for the Bonta method were calculated. Results based on standard 4-h solid gastric emptying, performed according to current Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging guidelines, served as the gold standard. RESULTS: Retention of 10% or less was achieved by 6, 77, 215, and 326 patients at 1, 2, 3, and 4 h, respectively. At 2 h, 261 of 431 patients (60.6%) had gastric retention of less than 45%, which according to Bonta would be classified as normal; 62 (14.4%) had gastric retention of more than 65%, which would be classified as delayed emptying; and 108 (25.1%) had intermediate values requiring further imaging through 4 h. The Bonta criteria yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.4%, 96.9%, and 95.8%, respectively, superior to any single cutoff point applied to the 2-h values. The criteria resulted in false-negative results in 8 (1.9%) patients, 6 of whom were borderline-positive at 4 h (gastric retention of 11%-14%). Using the Bonta criteria, 74.9% of studies would be terminated by 2 h, decreasing total camera use by 15.7%, from 1,768 to 1,490 images, and the average study duration would be reduced by 20.6%, from 3.1 to 2.5 h. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort, use of the Bonta criteria shortened the duration of studies in most patients, resulting in an effective compromise between reduced resource use, improved patient convenience, and preserved accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207