Vomiting during body surface gastric mapping testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Vomiting is a symptom of various gastrointestinal (GI) disorders and may invalidate gastric emptying tests. Body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) is a clinical test to assess motor vs . sensory contributors to GI symptoms. Aims While previous studies have observed myoelectrical dysrhythmias associated with vomiting, the effects of vomiting on BSGM testing have not been defined. Methods A large clinical database of de-identified BSGM tests was queried for vomiting events, noted by symptom markers via an integrated symptom reporting App. Tests with pre-meal or >2 vomiting events were excluded. Spectrograms and clinical reports were qualitatively assessed. Key BSGM metrics, including the Gastric Alimetry Rhythm Index (GA-RI) and BMI-adjusted amplitude, were interrogated in 5 min epochs for quantitative analysis. Results A total of 49 vomit events were included. Vomiting typically had little effect, though was sometimes characterised by small, temporary decreases in BMI-adjusted amplitude or GA-RI. Prolonged periods (> 10 mins) of low amplitude were observed in 4 cases (8%). A mixed effects model revealed a transient decrease in GA-RI in the 5 mins before (Δ = −0.27; p < 0.001) and after vomiting (Δ = −0.21; p = 0.014), but not in subsequent periods (all p > 0.05). Other metrics were unaffected. Nausea, bloating, and excessive fullness symptoms decreased following vomiting (all p < 0.05). Conclusions Transient amplitude and rhythm decreases were observed concurrent to vomiting, but subsequently normalised. While additional considerations may be required during test interpretation, the overall impact of vomiting on BSGM test interpretation is minimal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".