The clinical meaning of gastric-wall hyperactivity observed on sestamibi cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the incidence and clinical meaning, if any, of gastric-wall hyperactivity observed on sestamibi cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). This phenomenon is completely different from the well-known intraluminal gastric reflux of sestamibi. METHODS: A group of 819 patients who underwent sestamibi cardiac SPECT was studied from January 2000 to October 2000. Gastric-wall activity was graded qualitatively. Only patients with gastric-wall activity near or equivalent to their heart activity were considered for subsequent analysis. The medical records of patient candidates were reviewed, and their family physicians were asked to respond to a questionnaire by telephone when further information was needed. RESULTS: We identified 13 patients with significant gastric-wall hyperactivity, which was more intense on rest images. Our review of the clinical data shows that all these patients were suffering from dyspepsia and were taking gastric medication. These 13 cases were assigned to 3 groups: gastroesophageal reflux, chronic functional dyspepsia and nonspecific gastritis. Significant gastric-wall hyperactivity is an infrequent observation on sestamibi cardiac SPECT. Our results indicate that the presence of significant gastric-wall hyperactivity is associated with dyspepsia. CONCLUSION: It is important to realize that this gastric-wall hyperactivity by its proximity to the inferior myocardial wall could in some circumstances lead to either false-negative or false-positive findings, representing a diagnostic problem. Although infrequent, this situation could be avoided by proper quality control, including a systematic review of the raw cine data before reading the images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".