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

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 14987 - 13
• Main Authors: Schamberg, Gabriel, Calder, Stefan, Varghese, Chris, Xu, William, Wang, William Jiaen, Ho, Vincent, Daker, Charlotte, Andrews, Christopher N., O’Grady, Greg, Gharibans, Armen A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 11-09-2023; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 639/166/985; 692/4020; 692/4020/2741/533; Accuracy; Body Surface Potential Mapping; Classification; Consensus; Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent); Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Gastric motility; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Mapping; multidisciplinary; Retrospective Studies; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Spectral analysis; Stomach; Vomiting
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w

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.