Short‐ and long‐term reproducibility of body surface gastric mapping using the Gastric Alimetry® system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Many diagnostic tests for gastroduodenal symptoms, such as gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), gastric emptying breath tests (GEBT), and electrogastrography (EGG) show variable intra‐individual reproducibility over time. This study investigated the short‐ and long‐term reproducibility of body surface gastric mapping (BSGM), a non‐invasive test for assessing gastric function, in controls and patients with chronic gastroduodenal disorders. Methods Participants completed three standardized BSGM tests using Gastric Alimetry® (Alimetry, New Zealand). The test encompassed a fasting baseline (30 min), a 482 kCal standard meal, and a 4 h postprandial recording. The first two tests were >6 months apart and the last occurred ~1 week after the second test, to evaluate long and short‐term reproducibility. Results Fourteen patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and 14 healthy controls were recruited. There were no significant differences in any BSGM metrics between the tests at short and long term (all p > 0.180). Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) for the primary metrics were high, ranging from 0.58 to 0.96, with intra‐individual coefficients of variance (CV intra ) ranging from 0.2% to 1.9%. Reproducibility was higher, and intra‐individual variation lower, than in previous studies of GES (CCC = 0.54–0.83, CV intra = 3%–77%), GEBT (CV intra = 8%–11%), and EGG (CV intra = 3%–78%). Conclusions BSGM spectral metrics demonstrate high reproducibility and low intra‐individual variation at both short and long term, with superior results to comparable tests. The high reproducibility of Gastric Alimetry supports its role as a diagnostic aid for gastric dysfunction and a reliable tool for evaluating treatment outcomes and disease progression over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".