Clinical associations of functional dyspepsia with gastric dysrhythmia on electrogastrography: A comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common gastroduodenal disorder, yet its pathophysiology remains poorly understood. Bioelectrical gastric slow-wave abnormalities are thought to contribute to its multifactorial pathophysiology. Electrogastrography (EGG) has been used to record gastric electrical activity; however, the clinical associations require further evaluation. AIMS: This study aimed to systematically assess the clinical associations of EGG in FD. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched for articles using EGG in adults with FD. Primary outcomes were percentage normal versus abnormal rhythm (bradygastria, normogastria, and tachygastria). Secondary outcomes were dominant power, dominant frequency, percentage coupling, and the meal responses. RESULTS: 1751 FD patients and 555 controls from 47 studies were included. FD patients spent less time in normogastria while fasted (SMD -0.74; 95%CI -1.22 to -0.25) and postprandially (-0.86; 95%CI -1.35 to -0.37) compared with controls. FD patients also spent more fasted time in bradygastria (0.63; 95%CI 0.33-0.93) and tachygastria (0.45; 95%CI 0.12-0.78%). The power ratio (-0.17; 95%CI -0.83-0.48) and dominant frequency meal-response ratio (0.06; 95%CI -0.08-0.21) were not significantly different to controls. Correlations between EGG metrics and the presence and timing of FD symptoms were inconsistent. EGG methodologies were diverse and variably applied. CONCLUSION: Abnormal gastric slow-wave rhythms are a consistent abnormality present in FD, as defined by EGG and, therefore, likely play a role in pathophysiology. The aberrant electrophysiology identified in FD warrants further investigation, including into underlying mechanisms, associated spatial patterns, and symptom correlations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".