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

G. Schamberg; S. Calder; C. Varghese; W. Xu; William Jiaen Wang; Vincent Ho; C. Daker; C. N. Andrews; G. O’Grady; A. A. Gharibans

doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w

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

G. Schamberg, S. Calder, C. Varghese, W. Xu, William Jiaen Wang, Vincent Ho, C. Daker, C. N. Andrews, G. O’Grady, A. A. Gharibans

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	14987
Number of pages	13
Journal	Scientific Reports
Volume	13
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w
Publication status	Published - Dec 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, Springer Nature Limited.

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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. Te 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/.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w

Cite this

@article{5b4340a4c22a41f7929a38ac7db1f4c8,

title = "Comparison of Gastric Alimetry{\textregistered} body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis",

abstract = "Electrogastrography (EGG) non-invasively evaluates gastric motility but is viewed as lacking clinical utility. Gastric Alimetry{\textregistered} is a new diagnostic test that combines high-resolution body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) with validated symptom profiling, with the goal of overcoming EGG{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}s limited clinical utility. BSGM demonstrated substantial performance improvements across all domains.",

author = "G. Schamberg and S. Calder and C. Varghese and W. Xu and Wang, {William Jiaen} and Vincent Ho and C. Daker and Andrews, {C. N.} and G. O{\textquoteright}Grady and Gharibans, {A. A.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023, Springer Nature Limited.",

year = "2023",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

journal = "Scientific Reports",

issn = "2045-2322",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Gastric Alimetry® body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis

AU - Schamberg, G.

AU - Calder, S.

AU - Varghese, C.

AU - Xu, W.

AU - Wang, William Jiaen

AU - Ho, Vincent

AU - Daker, C.

AU - Andrews, C. N.

AU - O’Grady, G.

AU - Gharibans, A. A.

PY - 2023/12

Y1 - 2023/12

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:73068

U2 - 10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w

DO - 10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w

M3 - Article

SN - 2045-2322

VL - 13

JO - Scientific Reports

JF - Scientific Reports

IS - 1

M1 - 14987

ER -