S1894 Short- and Long-Term Reproducibility of Body Surface Gastric Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The global prevalence of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBIs) is increasing, contributing to growing healthcare burden. Current diagnostic methods, such as gastric emptying scintigraphy, are known to exhibit lability over time, contributing to diagnostic uncertainty. Body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) is a non-invasive method for detecting gastric electrophysiological biomarkers to aid gastric motility diagnostics. This study aimed to investigate the short- and long-term reproducibility of BSGM metrics. Methods: 14 patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and 14 healthy controls completed 3, standardised BSGM tests, using Gastric Alimetry®), comprising a stretchable high-resolution array (8x8 electrodes), a wearable reader and a validated symptom-logging app. The test encompassed a fasting baseline (30 minutes), a 482kCal meal, and a 4 hour postprandial recording. The first 2 tests were conducted 6-12 months apart (for long-term reproducibility) and the last test occurred 1 week later (for short-term reproducibility). Standard BSGM metrics analysed included; Principal Gastric Frequency, Gastric Alimetry Rhythm Index, BMI-adjusted amplitude, and fed:fasted amplitude ratio. Reproducibility was analysed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and intra- and inter-individual coefficients of variance (COV). Results: The average values of the BSGM metrics did not significantly differ between the tests at either short- or long-term, even when controlling for symptoms (all P>.07). The CCC for the metrics ranged from 0.52-0.96, demonstrating high short- and long-term reproducibility. The inter-individual COVs ranged from 9.3%-45.7%, whilst the intra-individual COVs ranged from 0.18%-2.6%. These data were compared to reproducibility statistics for other gastric motility tests, showing higher reproducibility and lower intra-individual variation than scintigraphy and electrogastrography (Figure 1). Conclusion: BSGM metrics showed high reproducibility and low intra-individual variation at both short- (1 week) and long-term (6-12 months), with superior reproducibility compared to other gastric motility tests. This indicates that the results from BSGM are not likely to be affected by day-to-day variability and remain consistent over time. The reproducibility of BSGM supports its role as a diagnostic aid for gastric dysfunction and as a reliable tool to evaluate longitudinal changes in treatment outcomes and disease progression.Figure 1.: Comparison of Gastric Alimetry reproducibility statistics with similar gastric motility tests analysed in previous literature using: (A) Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient, and (B) intra-individual variation. (a) Desai et al., (2018); (b) Horner et al., (2014); (c) Lartigue et al., (1994); (d) Roland, et al., (1990); (e) DiBaise et al., (2001).
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".