Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with chronic gastroduodenal disorders present with overlapping symptoms. Guidelines emphasize symptom-based criteria, but clinical evaluations are inconsistent due to non-standardized assessments and recall bias. Gastric Alimetry® is a non-invasive test of gastric function enabling real-time symptom evaluation via a standardized app. Methods Participants meeting Rome IV criteria for functional dyspepsia (FD) and/or chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome (CNVS) underwent a Gastric Alimetry test, including a meal challenge, with symptoms recorded every 15 minutes in the app. Based on time-of-test symptoms, four novel scores were developed: nausea/vomiting, postprandial distress, epigastric pain, and burning/reflux. Group differences were analyzed using pairwise t-tests, and Rome IV classifications were predicted via logistic regression. Remote moderated usability testing assessed score acceptability. Key Results Among 109 participants (79% female, 18-80 yrs), 54 met criteria for CNVS with/without FD, 41 for postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) only, and 14 for epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) with/without PDS. Symptom scores aligned with Rome IV classifications ( p <.05 for CNVS and EPS). Logistic regression showed good discrimination for CNVS (AUC=0.85) and EPS (AUC=0.80), and moderate discrimination for PDS (AUC=0.68). Usability testing confirmed clinical utility and ease of use. Conclusions & Inferences Gastric Alimetry symptom scores align with Rome IV classifications, with real-time patient-reported snapshots accurately reflecting chronic symptom burden. These scores provide a clinically applicable diagnostic tool alongside simultaneous physiological gastric function assessments. Key Points Four novel Gastric Alimetry symptom scores summarize the relative severity of symptoms in subgroups aligned with Rome IV classifications. The proposed time-of-test symptom scores showed moderate-to-good ability to predict diagnoses made using the Rome IV criteria. Usability testing with eight clinicians showed that the scores provided an easy-to-use and clinically useful tool to complement diagnosis of gastroduodenal disorders.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".