Assessment of gastric emptying using a low fat meal: establishment of international control values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of gastroparesis implies delayed gastric emptying. The diagnostic gold standard is scintigraphy, but techniques and measured endpoints vary widely among institutions. In this study, a simplified scintigraphic measurement of gastric emptying was compared to conventional gastric scintigraphic techniques and normal gastric emptying values defined in healthy subjects. METHODS: In 123 volunteers (aged 19-73 yr, 60 women and 63 men) from 11 centers, scintigraphy was used to assess gastric emptying of a 99Tc-labeled low fat meal (egg substitute) and percent intragastric residual contents 60, 120, and 240 min after completion of the meal. In 42 subjects, additional measurements were taken every 10 min for 1 h. In 20 subjects, gastric emptying of a 99Tc-labeled liver meal was compared with that of the 99Tc-labeled low fat meal. RESULTS: Median values (95th percentile) for percent gastric retention at 60, 120, and 240 min were 69% (90%), 24% (60%) and 1.2% (10%) respectively. A power exponential model yielded similar emptying curves and estimated T50 when using images only taken at 1, 2 and 4 h, or with imaging taken every 10 min. Gastric emptying was initially more rapid in men but was comparable in men and women at 4 h; it was faster in older subjects (p < 0.05) but was independent of body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study provides gastric emptying values in healthy subjects based on data obtained using a large sample size and consistent meal and methodology. Gastric retention of >10% at 4 h is indicative of delayed emptying, a value comparable to those provided by more intensive scanning approaches. Gastric emptying of a low fat meal is initially faster in men but is comparable in women at 4 h; it is also faster in older individuals but is independent of body mass.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".