Cargando…

Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis

Electrogastrography (EGG) non-invasively evaluates gastric motility but is viewed as lacking clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry(®) is a new diagnostic test that combines high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) with validated symptom profiling, with the goal of overcoming EGG’s limitation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schamberg, Gabriel, Calder, Stefan, Varghese, Chris, Xu, William, Wang, William Jiaen, Ho, Vincent, Daker, Charlotte, Andrews, Christopher N., O’Grady, Greg, Gharibans, Armen A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37696955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w
_version_ 1785104875140415488
author Schamberg, Gabriel
Calder, Stefan
Varghese, Chris
Xu, William
Wang, William Jiaen
Ho, Vincent
Daker, Charlotte
Andrews, Christopher N.
O’Grady, Greg
Gharibans, Armen A.
author_facet Schamberg, Gabriel
Calder, Stefan
Varghese, Chris
Xu, William
Wang, William Jiaen
Ho, Vincent
Daker, Charlotte
Andrews, Christopher N.
O’Grady, Greg
Gharibans, Armen A.
author_sort Schamberg, Gabriel
collection PubMed
description Electrogastrography (EGG) non-invasively evaluates gastric motility but is viewed as lacking clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry(®) is a new diagnostic test that combines high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) with validated symptom profiling, with the goal of overcoming EGG’s limitations. This study directly compared EGG and BSGM to define performance differences in spectral analysis. Comparisons between Gastric Alimetry BSGM and EGG were conducted by protocolized retrospective evaluation of 178 subjects [110 controls; 68 nausea and vomiting (NVS) and/or type 1 diabetes (T1D)]. Comparisons followed standard methodologies for each test (pre-processing, post-processing, analysis), with statistical evaluations for group-level differences, symptom correlations, and patient-level classifications. BSGM showed substantially tighter frequency ranges vs EGG in controls. Both tests detected rhythm instability in NVS, but EGG showed opposite frequency effects in T1D. BSGM showed an 8× increase in the number of significant correlations with symptoms. BSGM accuracy for patient-level classification was 0.78 for patients vs controls and 0.96 as compared to blinded consensus panel; EGG accuracy was 0.54 and 0.43. EGG detected group-level differences in patients, but lacked symptom correlations and showed poor accuracy for patient-level classification, explaining EGG’s limited clinical utility. BSGM demonstrated substantial performance improvements across all domains.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10495352
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104953522023-09-13 Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis Schamberg, Gabriel Calder, Stefan Varghese, Chris Xu, William Wang, William Jiaen Ho, Vincent Daker, Charlotte Andrews, Christopher N. O’Grady, Greg Gharibans, Armen A. Sci Rep Article Electrogastrography (EGG) non-invasively evaluates gastric motility but is viewed as lacking clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry(®) is a new diagnostic test that combines high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) with validated symptom profiling, with the goal of overcoming EGG’s limitations. This study directly compared EGG and BSGM to define performance differences in spectral analysis. Comparisons between Gastric Alimetry BSGM and EGG were conducted by protocolized retrospective evaluation of 178 subjects [110 controls; 68 nausea and vomiting (NVS) and/or type 1 diabetes (T1D)]. Comparisons followed standard methodologies for each test (pre-processing, post-processing, analysis), with statistical evaluations for group-level differences, symptom correlations, and patient-level classifications. BSGM showed substantially tighter frequency ranges vs EGG in controls. Both tests detected rhythm instability in NVS, but EGG showed opposite frequency effects in T1D. BSGM showed an 8× increase in the number of significant correlations with symptoms. BSGM accuracy for patient-level classification was 0.78 for patients vs controls and 0.96 as compared to blinded consensus panel; EGG accuracy was 0.54 and 0.43. EGG detected group-level differences in patients, but lacked symptom correlations and showed poor accuracy for patient-level classification, explaining EGG’s limited clinical utility. BSGM demonstrated substantial performance improvements across all domains. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10495352/ /pubmed/37696955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Schamberg, Gabriel
Calder, Stefan
Varghese, Chris
Xu, William
Wang, William Jiaen
Ho, Vincent
Daker, Charlotte
Andrews, Christopher N.
O’Grady, Greg
Gharibans, Armen A.
Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title_full Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title_short Comparison of Gastric Alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
title_sort comparison of gastric alimetry(®) body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37696955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w
work_keys_str_mv AT schamberggabriel comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT calderstefan comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT varghesechris comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT xuwilliam comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT wangwilliamjiaen comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT hovincent comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT dakercharlotte comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT andrewschristophern comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT ogradygreg comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis
AT gharibansarmena comparisonofgastricalimetrybodysurfacegastricmappingversuselectrogastrographyspectralanalysis