13C-octanoic acid breath test for gastric emptying measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this multicentre study was to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the 13C-octanoic acid breath test compared to scintigraphy for measurement of gastric emptying. METHODS: Sixty-nine healthy subjects (40 men, 29 women; mean age 30 years, range 21-61) were studied at least once by using the 13C-octanoic breath test. In 34 healthy subjects, gastric emptying was simultaneously measured by gastric scintigraphy, and the 13C-octanoic breath test was then repeated in 18 of these cases. Fifty-four patients (30 men, 24 women; mean age 46 years, range 13-74) with dyspeptic or reflux symptoms were studied according to the same procedure. RESULTS: The correlation between breath test and scintigraphic values was highly significant (r = 0.744, P<0.001). The concordance of results of scintigraphy and breath test (normal versus abnormal) and the reproducibility (Bland and Altman method) of the breath test were good (CVinter = 24%, CVintra = 15%). As compared to scintigraphy, breath test detected an abnormal gastric emptying with 67% sensitivity and 80% specificity (ROC analysis). CONCLUSION: These results confirm the value of breath test as an accurate measurement of gastric emptying. Its excellent reproducibility makes it a method of choice for pharmacological studies. However, at least when scintigraphy is considered the gold standard, breath test sensitivity may be insufficient for the detection of gastroparesis in an individual patient.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".