P268 The use of gastric alimetry® for specific patient phenotyping in gastroduodenal disorders in comparison to gastric emptying scintigraphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gastric emptying testing (GET), while useful for evaluating gastric motility, is not specific nor sensitive for neuromuscular disorders. However, Gastric Alimetry® (GA) is a novel medical test that uses gastric mapping and validated symptom profiling. The current study compared the patient-specific phenotyping from GA with GET. Methods Patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms completed GET and GA concurrently. Tests included a 30-minute baseline, 99mTC-labelled egg meal and 4-hour postprandial recording. Results were compared to the reference normative ranges. The validated GA App profiled symptoms and subsequently phenotyped them using rule-based criteria into either: 1) Continuous (no correlation between symptoms and meal or gastric activity); 2) Gastric Sensorimotor (correlation between symptoms and meal or gastric activity); 3) or Other, to compare with questionnaires. Results 75 patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms were assessed; 77% female, median age 43, median BMI 24.0. Motility abnormality detection rates were 22.7% (GET); 33.3% (GA) with a combined yield 42.7%. All groups showed similar symptom profiles and did not correlate with Rome criteria or health psychology factors (p>0.05). GA symptom phenotypes (figure 1A) were: gastric sensorimotor 17%; continuous 30%; other 53%. Strong correlations between the sensorimotor phenotype and gastric amplitude were observed (median r=0.61 vs r=0.08 and r=0.06 respectively; p=0.0002). The continuous phenotype correlated with depression and anxiety (p<0.05), while Rome IV Criteria did not (p>0.05). No correlation between GET abnormalities and GA phenotypes was found (figure 1B). Conclusion In patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms, GA produced a high yield for motility abnormalities, compared to GET. Additionally, GA found correlations between patient-specific symptom phenotypes and health psychology factors, which were not identified by ROME IV and GET. Together, the results suggest that GA and GET may work in conjunction with each other by assessing different features of gastric functioning.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".