Evaluation of a Digital Handheld Hydrogen Breath Monitor to Diagnose Lactose Malabsorption: Interventional Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lactose malabsorption is a common condition that affects a broad segment of the population. Clinical diagnosis based on symptom recall can be unreliable and conventional testing can be inconvenient, requiring expensive laboratory-based equipment and conduction of the testing in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the performance of a digital handheld hydrogen breath monitor (GIMate) in diagnosing lactose malabsorption compared to a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared device (H2 Check) for the same indication. METHODS: An interventional crossover study was performed in adult participants with a prior confirmed diagnosis of lactose malabsorption or a suspected history of lactose intolerance. RESULTS: A total of 31 participants (mean age 33.9 years) were enrolled in the study. There was 100% positive percent agreement and 100% negative percent agreement between the GIMate monitor and the H2 Check. Correlation between gastrointestinal symptoms and hydrogen values was positive at 0.82 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The digital handheld GIMate breath monitor achieved equivalent diagnostic performance to that of an FDA-cleared device in the diagnosis of lactose malabsorption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04754724; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04754724.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".