MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381125459 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-bsg.55

O56 An evaluation of gastric alimetry® body surface gastric mapping compared to electrogastrography spectral analysis

2023· article· en· W4381125459 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineGastroenterologyMedicineVomiting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Although Electrogastrography (EGG) is a non-invasive method of evaluating gastric motility, it has limited clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry® (GA) is a novel diagnostic test that aims to address the limitations of the EGG through the combination of high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BGSM) and validated symptom profiling. To measure performance differences in spectral analysis, the current study directly evaluated EGG with BSGM. <h3>Methods</h3> 178 subjects (110 controls; 68 nausea and vomiting (NVS) and/or type 1 diabetes (T1D)) completed the standard methodologies for GA BSGM and EGG, with identical data collection. Protocolized evaluations were completed between tests, with statistical evaluations for group-level differences, symptom correlations, and patient-level classifications. The BSGM tests gave Gastric Alimetry Rhythm Index<sup>TM</sup> (GA-RI), Principal Gastric Frequency (PGF), BMI-Adjusted Amplitude, and Fed:Fasted Amplitude Ratio, while EGG tests gave the% time normal frequency, dominant frequency, amplitude, and amplitude ratio as final spectral metrics. A blinded consensus panel reference standard<sup>1</sup> and published reference values<sup>2</sup> were used for the patient-level classifications. <h3>Results</h3> <i>Group-level:</i> BSGM showed tighter frequency ranges vs EGG in controls (median 3.04 cpm (IQR 2.90–3.18) vs 2.88 (1.50–3.12); p&lt;0.0001). Both tests were able to detect rhythm instability in NVS (p&lt;0.001) and T1D (p&lt;0.05), but EGG displayed opposing frequency effects in T1D (2.50 vs controls 2.88; p=0.28) to BSGM (3.15 vs 3.04; p=0.0004). <i>Symptom correlations:</i> GA-RI correlated with nausea, pain, bloating, and total symptom burden; PGF deviation with excessive fullness, pain and bloating;% time in normal frequency correlated with bloating (p&lt;0.05). <i>Patient-level:</i> EGG sensitivity was 1.0, specificity 0.38; BSGM sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.96 (<b>figure 1</b>). <h3>Conclusions and Inferences</h3> The limited clinical utility of EGG is demonstrated by its ability to detect group-level differences but not the correlations between symptoms or accurate patient-level classification. Therefore, compared to EGG, BSGM showed considerable improvements across each area. <h3>References</h3> Gharibans AA, <i>et al. Sci Transl Med.</i> Varghese C, <i>et al. Am J Gastroenterol</i>.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it