Predictors of Outcomes After Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Refractory Gastroparesis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastroparesis is a debilitating gastroduodenal disorder for which gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (GPOEM) has emerged as an efficacious treatment option. However, response to GPOEM varies between 50% and 80%, such that preoperative predictors of treatment success are needed to guide patient selection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify predictors of clinical and functional response to GPOEM among adult patients with gastroparesis (PROSPERO: CRD42023457359). MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically for studies reporting outcomes after GPOEM in September 2023. A narrative synthesis of predictive factors on univariable and multivariable analysis was performed with consideration of response rates through meta-analysis and evaluation of discrimination if prognostic models were developed. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) was used for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Of 1899 articles reviewed, 30 were included. The GPOEM response rate was 63.1% (95% confidence interval 56.3%-69.5%) with most studies defining clinical success on the basis of improvement in gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (87%, 26/30). Older age, shorter duration of gastroparesis, nondiabetic etiology, lower body mass index, and response to intrapyloric botulinum toxin were associated with positive response to GPOEM on multivariable analyses. Predictors on physiological tests such as EndoFLIP or gastric emptying scintigraphy were inconsistent. No prognostic models underwent external validation. DISCUSSION: Currently, there are limited reproducible predictors of response to GPOEM among patients with refractory gastroparesis. Robust prospective studies investigating scalable, reproducible, and actionable biomarkers of treatment response are required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".