Longitudinal outcome monitoring in patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms investigated using the Gastric Alimetry system: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Gastric Alimetry platform offers a multimodal assessment of gastric function through body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) and concurrent symptom-tracking via a validated App. We aim to perform a longitudinal cohort study to examine the impact of Gastric Alimetry, and changes in clinical management on patient symptoms, quality of life and psychological health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective multicentre longitudinal observational cohort study of participants with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms. Consecutive participants undergoing Gastric Alimetry will be invited to participate. Quality of life will be assessed via EuroQol-5D and the Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life score. Gastrointestinal symptoms will be assessed via the Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity index, and the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index. Psychometrics will be assessed, including anxiety via the General Anxiety Disorder-7, perceived stress using the Perceived Stress Scale 4, and depression via the Patient Health Questionnaire 9. Clinical parameters including diagnoses, investigations and treatments (medication and procedures) will also be captured. Assessments will be made the week after the BSGM test, at 30 days, 90 days, 180 days and 360 days thereafter. The primary outcome is feasibility of longitudinal follow-up of a cohort that have undergone Gastric Alimetry testing; from which patients' continuum of care can be characterised. Secondary outcomes include changes in patient-reported symptoms, quality of life and psychometrics (anxiety, stress and depression). Inferential causal analyses will be performed at the within patient level to explore causal associations between treatment changes and clinical outcomes. The impact of Gastric Alimetry on clinical management will also be captured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved in Aotearoa New Zealand by the Auckland Health Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for conference presentation and peer-reviewed publication.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".