An automated artifact detection and rejection system for body surface gastric mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) is a new clinical tool for gastric motility diagnostics, providing high-resolution data on gastric myoelectrical activity. Artifact contamination was a key challenge to reliable test interpretation in traditional electrogastrography. This study aimed to introduce and validate an automated artifact detection and rejection system for clinical BSGM applications. METHODS: Ten patients with chronic gastric symptoms generated a variety of artifacts according to a standardized protocol (176 recordings) using a commercial BSGM system (Alimetry, New Zealand). An automated artifact detection and rejection algorithm was developed, and its performance was compared with a reference standard comprising consensus labeling by 3 analysis experts, followed by comparison with 6 clinicians (3 untrained and 3 trained in artifact detection). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Fleiss' kappa. KEY RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was 0.84 (95% CI:0.77-0.90) among experts, 0.76 (95% CI:0.68-0.83) among untrained clinicians, and 0.71 (95% CI:0.62-0.79) among trained clinicians. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm against experts was 96% (95% CI:91%-100%) and 95% (95% CI:90%-99%), respectively, vs 77% (95% CI:68%-85%) and 99% (95% CI:96%-100%) against untrained clinicians, and 97% (95% CI:92%-100%) and 88% (95% CI:82%-94%) against trained clinicians. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: An automated artifact detection and rejection algorithm was developed showing >95% sensitivity and specificity vs expert markers. This algorithm overcomes an important challenge in the clinical translation of BSGM and is now being routinely implemented in patient test interpretations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".