Gastric Alimetry Expands Patient Phenotyping in Gastroduodenal Disorders Compared with Gastric Emptying Scintigraphy.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric emptying testing (GET) assesses gastric motility, however, is nonspecific and insensitive for neuromuscular disorders. Gastric Alimetry (GA) is a new medical device combining noninvasive gastric electrophysiological mapping and validated symptom profiling. This study assessed patient-specific phenotyping using GA compared with GET. METHODS: Patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms underwent simultaneous GET and GA, comprising a 30-minute baseline, 99m TC-labelled egg meal, and 4-hour postprandial recording. Results were referenced to normative ranges. Symptoms were profiled in the validated GA App and phenotyped using rule-based criteria based on their relationships to the meal and gastric activity: (i) sensorimotor, (ii) continuous, and (iii) other. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were assessed, 77% female. Motility abnormality detection rates were as follows: GET 22.7% (14 delayed, 3 rapid), GA spectral analysis 33.3% (14 low rhythm stability/low amplitude, 5 high amplitude, and 6 abnormal frequency), and combined yield 42.7%. In patients with normal spectral analysis, GA symptom phenotypes included sensorimotor 17% (where symptoms strongly paired with gastric amplitude, median r = 0.61), continuous 30%, and other 53%. GA phenotypes showed superior correlations with Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index, Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index, and anxiety scales, whereas Rome IV Criteria did not correlate with psychometric scores ( P > 0.05). Delayed emptying was not predictive of specific GA phenotypes. DISCUSSION: GA improves patient phenotyping in chronic gastroduodenal disorders in the presence and absence of motility abnormalities with increased correlation with symptoms and psychometrics compared with gastric emptying status and Rome IV criteria. These findings have implications for the diagnostic profiling and personalized management of gastroduodenal disorders.

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 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.

Gastric Alimetry ® improves patient phenotyping in gastroduodenal disorders compared to gastric emptying scintigraphy alone.

Objectives: Gastric emptying testing (GET) assesses gastric motility, however is non-specific and insensitive for neuromuscular disorders. Gastric Alimetry® (GA) is a new medical device combining non-invasive gastric electrophysiological mapping and validated symptom profiling. This study assessed patient-specific phenotyping using GA compared to GET. Methods: Patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms underwent simultaneous GET and GA, comprising a 30-minute baseline, 99m TC-labelled egg meal, and 4-hour postprandial recording. Results were referenced to normative ranges. Symptoms were profiled in the validated GA App and phenotyped using rule-based criteria based on their relationships to the meal and gastric activity: i) sensorimotor; ii) continuous; and iii) other. Results: 75 patients were assessed; 77% female. Motility abnormality detection rates were: GET 22.7% (14 delayed, 3 rapid); GA spectral analysis 33.3% (14 low rhythm stability / low amplitude; 5 high amplitude; 6 abnormal frequency); combined yield 42.7%. In patients with normal spectral analysis, GA symptom phenotypes included: sensorimotor 17% (where symptoms strongly paired with gastric amplitude; median r=0.61); continuous 30%; other 53%. GA phenotypes showed superior correlations with GCSI, PAGI-SYM, and anxiety scales, whereas Rome IV Criteria did not correlate with psychometric scores (p>0.05). Delayed emptying was not predictive of specific GA phenotypes. Conclusions: GA improves patient phenotyping in chronic gastroduodenal disorders in the presence and absence of motility abnormalities with improved correlation with symptoms and psychometrics compared to gastric emptying status and Rome IV criteria. These findings have implications for the diagnostic profiling and personalized management of gastroduodenal disorders. Study Highlights: 1) WHAT IS KNOWN Chronic gastroduodenal symptoms are common, costly and greatly impact on quality of lifeThere is a poor correlation between gastric emptying testing (GET) and symptomsGastric Alimetry® is a new medical device combining non-invasive gastric electrophysiological mapping and validated symptom profiling 2) WHAT IS NEW HERE Gastric Alimetry generates a 1.5x higher yield for motility abnormalities than GETWith symptom profiling, Gastric Alimetry identified 2.7x more specific patient categories than GETGastric Alimetry improves clinical phenotyping, with improved correlation with symptoms and psychometrics compared to GET.

Normative Values for Body Surface Gastric Mapping Evaluations of Gastric Motility Using Gastric Alimetry: Spectral Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) is a new noninvasive test of gastric function. BSGM offers several novel and improved biomarkers of gastric function capable of differentiating patients with overlapping symptom profiles. The aim of this study was to define normative reference intervals for BSGM spectral metrics in a population of healthy controls. METHODS: BSGM was performed in healthy controls using Gastric Alimetry (Alimetry, New Zealand) comprising a stretchable high-resolution array (8 × 8 electrodes; 196 cm 2 ), wearable Reader, and validated symptom-logging App. The evaluation encompassed a fasting baseline (30 minutes), 482 kCal meal, and 4-hour postprandial recording. Normative reference intervals were calculated for BSGM metrics including the Principal Gastric Frequency, Gastric Alimetry Rhythm Index (a measure of the concentration of power in the gastric frequency band over time), body mass index (BMI)-adjusted amplitude (µV), and fed:fasted amplitude ratio. Data were reported as median and reference interval (5th and/or 95th percentiles). RESULTS: A total of 110 subjects (55% female, median age 32 years [interquartile range 24-50], median BMI 23.8 kg/m 2 [interquartile range 21.4-26.9]) were included. The median Principal Gastric Frequency was 3.04 cycles per minute; reference interval: 2.65-3.35 cycles per minute. The median Gastric Alimetry Rhythm Index was 0.50; reference interval: ≥0.25. The median BMI-adjusted amplitude was 37.6 µV; reference interval: 20-70 µV. The median fed:fasted amplitude ratio was 1.85; reference interval ≥1.08. A higher BMI was associated with a shorter meal-response duration ( P = 0.014). DISCUSSION: This study provides normative reference intervals for BSGM spectral data to inform diagnostic interpretations of abnormal gastric function.