Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria

Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria View ORCID Profile Armen A. Gharibans , View ORCID Profile I-Hsuan Huang , View ORCID Profile Chris Varghese , View ORCID Profile Gabriel Schamberg , Sarvnaz Taherian , View ORCID Profile Nicky Dachs , View ORCID Profile Mikaela Law , View ORCID Profile Stefan Calder , Christopher N. Andrews , Jan Tack , View ORCID Profile Greg O’Grady doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.19.25322571 Armen A. Gharibans 1 Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 2 Auckland Bioengineering Institute, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand 4 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania , Pennsylvania, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Armen A. Gharibans For correspondence: armen.gharibans{at}auckland.ac.nz I-Hsuan Huang 5 Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals , Leuven, Belgium 6 Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center , Taipei, Taiwan Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for I-Hsuan Huang Chris Varghese 1 Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Chris Varghese Gabriel Schamberg 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Gabriel Schamberg Sarvnaz Taherian 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Nicky Dachs 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Nicky Dachs Mikaela Law 1 Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Mikaela Law Stefan Calder 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Stefan Calder Christopher N. Andrews 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand 7 Dept of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary , Canada Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jan Tack 5 Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals , Leuven, Belgium Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Greg O’Grady 1 Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 2 Auckland Bioengineering Institute, The University of Auckland , New Zealand 3 Alimetry Ltd , Auckland, New Zealand Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Greg O’Grady Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Background Patients with chronic gastroduodenal disorders present with overlapping symptoms. Guidelines emphasize symptom-based criteria, but clinical evaluations are inconsistent due to non-standardized assessments and recall bias. Gastric Alimetry® is a non-invasive test of gastric function enabling real-time symptom evaluation via a standardized app. Methods Participants meeting Rome IV criteria for functional dyspepsia (FD) and/or chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome (CNVS) underwent a Gastric Alimetry test, including a meal challenge, with symptoms recorded every 15 minutes in the app. Based on time-of-test symptoms, four novel scores were developed: nausea/vomiting, postprandial distress, epigastric pain, and burning/reflux. Group differences were analyzed using pairwise t-tests, and Rome IV classifications were predicted via logistic regression. Remote moderated usability testing assessed score acceptability. Key Results Among 109 participants (79% female, 18-80 yrs), 54 met criteria for CNVS with/without FD, 41 for postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) only, and 14 for epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) with/without PDS. Symptom scores aligned with Rome IV classifications ( p <.05 for CNVS and EPS). Logistic regression showed good discrimination for CNVS (AUC=0.85) and EPS (AUC=0.80), and moderate discrimination for PDS (AUC=0.68). Usability testing confirmed clinical utility and ease of use. Conclusions & Inferences Gastric Alimetry symptom scores align with Rome IV classifications, with real-time patient-reported snapshots accurately reflecting chronic symptom burden. These scores provide a clinically applicable diagnostic tool alongside simultaneous physiological gastric function assessments. Key Points Four novel Gastric Alimetry symptom scores summarize the relative severity of symptoms in subgroups aligned with Rome IV classifications. The proposed time-of-test symptom scores showed moderate-to-good ability to predict diagnoses made using the Rome IV criteria. Usability testing with eight clinicians showed that the scores provided an easy-to-use and clinically useful tool to complement diagnosis of gastroduodenal disorders. Introduction Diagnosing and managing chronic gastroduodenal disorders, including functional dyspepsia (FD) and chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome (CNVS), is challenging due to overlapping symptoms. 1 , 2 While gastric emptying, the current gold-standard for diagnosis, is informative, it does not reliably distinguish between these conditions, which require different management approaches. 3 , 4 Current diagnostic guidelines emphasize self-reported symptom profiling to guide diagnosis, 5 – 7 but such assessments are frequently limited by non-standardized clinical methods and recall bias. Additionally, clinicians often lack time to perform detailed symptom evaluations with validated questionnaires, and patients may struggle to differentiate specific gastrointestinal symptoms and their relationships to meals. 8 Consequently, a simple and reliable clinical tool for accurate symptom profiling is highly desirable. Gastric Alimetry ® (Alimetry, New Zealand) is a new, non-invasive test of gastric function that enables simultaneous body surface gastric mapping (BSGM) and standardized symptom evaluation via the validated Gastric Alimetry App. 9 , 10 The App incorporates symptom descriptions alongside pictograms shown to improve accuracy in patient symptom classifications. 8 , 11 The App, in conjunction with a 4.5-hour test protocol that includes a meal challenge, has demonstrated robust validity and ease of use. 12 This App therefore presents a convenient and reliable option for symptom profiling in clinical practice. This study aimed to leverage the outputs from the Gastric Alimetry App to generate a novel set of symptom scores, providing a concise summary of key symptom profiles that align with current gastroduodenal disorder classifications. Materials & Methods Data were collected as part of a prospective observational cohort study conducted in Leuven, Belgium (ethical approval from the Ethics Committee Research UZ Leuven S65541). Participants meeting Rome IV criteria for FD and/or CNVS were included. Patients underwent a standard 4.5-hour Gastric Alimetry test, comprising a 30-minute fasted baseline, consumption of a ~250 kcal meal, and 4-hr post-prandial recording. The Gastric Alimetry App, which includes a gastroduodenal symptom pictogram set validated in both adults and children, was used ( Figure 1A ). 11 , 12 Throughout the test, patients used a dashboard interface to record their symptoms, both at will and in response to 15-minute notifications. Ten symptoms were captured: six continuous symptoms using 0 (none) to 10 (most severe imaginable) Likert scales (nausea, upper abdominal pain, bloating, heartburn, stomach burn, and excessive fullness); three event logs (vomiting, belching, and reflux); and one score from 0 to 10 entered immediately postprandially (early satiation). The App has demonstrated 100% patient compliance. 12 Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1. A) Patient symptom dashboard in the Gastric Alimetry App, showing six continuous symptoms and three symptom events. Symptoms are recorded over the course of a test meal (30 min baseline; 4 hr postprandially). Update notifications are provided every 15 min and patients can update symptoms or events at any time using the dashboard display. Examples are shown for one continuous symptom example (upper gut pain) and one symptom event (vomiting). B) Clinician output, displaying the time-of-test symptom curves and symptom event markers, structured within the four novel score domains. Symptom descriptors (e.g. ‘Meal Induced’) are provided as ‘tags’. C) Summary symptom score display, generated from the data in (B), including symptom tags. Four novel symptom scores (0-10 scale) were developed to summarize nausea/vomiting, postprandial distress, epigastric pain, and burning/reflux, using the calculations described in Supplementary Text S1 . A clinical report interface was developed to summarize captured symptom results graphically ( Figure 1B ), along with a summary symptom report ( Figure 1C ). Descriptive ‘tags’ were automatically generated to indicate whether symptoms exhibited a meal-induced, meal-alleviated, late-onset, or continuous profile, and/or a sensorimotor profile (defined as correlation between gastric amplitude and symptoms) ( Figures 1B,C ). 13 These tags, previously proposed based on rule-based criteria ( Supplementary Text S2 ), have demonstrated utility in further subclassifying the origin and profile of gastroduodenal symptoms in relation to a meal. 13 – 15 Participants were also classified into standard ROME IV diagnostic categories: 1) CNVS with/without FD, 2) postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) only, and 3) epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) with/without PDS. 1 Group differences were analyzed using pairwise t-tests. Logistic regression was used to predict Rome IV classifications based on the novel symptom scores, assessing the alignment of these scores with Rome IV classifications and their ability to reflect chronic symptom burden. Qualitative feedback on the usability and acceptability of the symptom scores was obtained through remote, moderated ‘think-aloud’ usability tests with clinicians. Clinicians were shown two independent reports and asked to interpret them as they would with their own patients. During these sessions, clinicians were encouraged to verbalize their interpretation process, while the moderator explored areas of confusion or difficulty. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and assessed via thematic analysis. Results A total of 109 participants were recruited (n = 86, 79% female; age range 18-80 years; BMI 16.2-36.9 kg/m 2 ), comprising 54 meeting criteria for CNVS with/without FD, 41 for PDS only, and 14 for EPS with/without PDS. Participants interacted with the App on average every 14.3 minutes (SD = 4.5), reflecting a high level of engagement. Additionally, the average interval between symptom logs for any individual patient did not exceed 18.7 minutes, confirming complete compliance. Pairwise analysis revealed strong alignment between the novel Gastric Alimetry symptom and Rome IV classifications, effectively discriminating between Rome IV diagnostic groups ( Figure 2A ). The CNVS group exhibited a significantly higher nausea/vomiting score than the PDS group (p = .004). The PDS group’s highest score was for postprandial distress. The EPS group demonstrated significantly higher pain scores compared to both the CNVS (p = .002) and PDS (p < .001) groups, as well as elevated burning/reflux scores compared to the PDS group (p = .033). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. A) Box plots displaying the distribution of Gastric Alimetry symptom scores for nausea/vomiting, postprandial distress, pain, and burning/reflux across participants classified by Rome IV criteria (Chronic Nausea and Vomiting Syndrome (CNVS) with/without Functional Dyspepsia (FD), FD with postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) only, and FD with epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) with/without PDS) (*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001). B) ROC curves showing the performance of a logistic regression model in discriminating between Rome IV diagnostic groups based on Gastric Alimetry symptom scores. The diagonal dashed line represents the reference for no discrimination (AUC = 0.50). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated good discrimination for CNVS (AUC = 0.85) and EPS (AUC = 0.80), and moderate discrimination for PDS (AUC = 0.68) based on the four symptom scores ( Figure 2B ). Model details are provided in Supplementary Text S3 . Eight clinicians with a range of experience levels using Gastric Alimetry in clinical and/or research settings participated in usability testing. All clinicians agreed on the usefulness and acceptability of the symptom scores. They highlighted that the scores followed existing clinical guidelines, matching their mental models for diagnosis. The scores enabled clinicians to objectively and rapidly compare symptom clusters to identify which were dominant. Discussion This study introduced a set of novel symptom scores, derived from a standardized digital symptom assessment with meal challenge, and validated them against the Rome IV criteria in a cohort of patients with FD and CNVS. While Rome IV categories represent a chronic symptom burden and exhibit significant overlap, 13 our findings demonstrate that the novel scores effectively differentiate Rome IV diagnostic groups based on a single meal assessment. Together with the novel clinical interfaces presented in Figure 1 , which were found to be user-friendly and clinically useful, these scores offer a valuable new diagnostic aid for symptom profiling. Both the Rome criteria and current clinical guidelines emphasize categorizing patients into nausea/vomiting-predominant, PDS-predominant, pain-predominant, or heartburn/reflux categories to appropriately direct management. 5 – 7 However, obtaining accurate and detailed symptom insights within time-limited clinical settings can be challenging. The App-based profiling platform described here offers a practical alternative or proxy estimate for the Rome criteria, utilizing pictograms, a digital interface, and summary scores that are all now comprehensively validated. 11 , 12 Real-time symptom evaluation may also offer advantages over traditional retrospective questionnaire-based assessments by overcoming recall and mood-congruent biases. 16 , 17 In addition, the use of a standardized meal provides a uniform challenge to the upper gastrointestinal tract and eliminates any influence of self-imposed dietary restrictions on daily symptom patterns and severities. 18 A key strength of the current symptom profiling platform is its ability to deliver a clinically actionable report of patient symptoms in real time alongside physiological assessments. Usability testing confirmed the report’s ease of use and its significant contribution to clinical assessment and diagnosis. This system is currently integrated into the Gastric Alimetry BSGM platform for motility assessment; 9 , 10 and the system could also be applied alongside other diagnostic tests, such as gastric emptying testing. 15 Robustly profiling symptoms during physiological testing is a key method for defining pathophysiological associations and causality in gastrointestinal motility disorders, and we therefore anticipate widespread adoption of this platform in future research. 13 , 19 – 21 In addition, the Gastric Alimetry App optionally includes a validated scale that assesses mental health, including subscales for depression, stress, and anxiety specifically tailored to gastroduodenal disorders, providing additional multimodal inputs for comprehensive profiling of these multifaceted disorders. 22 A limitation of the study is the use of a single cohort from one country (Belgium). Further validation in diverse patient populations would be valuable. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated global consistency of Rome IV classifications, the results presented here are likely to be generalizable to other populations. 23 In conclusion, this paper introduces novel digital symptom summary scores for assessing patients with gastroduodenal disorders. The scores are validated, easy to use, and align with Rome IV classifications. They provide a practical diagnostic aid that will be particularly useful alongside real-time physiological assessments of gastric function. Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. References [1]. ↵ Stanghellini V , Chan FKL , Hasler WL , Malagelada JR , Suzuki H , Tack J , et al. Gastroduodenal Disorders . Gastroenterology . 2016 ; 150 ( 6 ): 1380 – 1392 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [2]. ↵ Ford AC , Mahadeva S , Carbone MF , Lacy BE , Talley NJ . Functional dyspepsia . Lancet . 2020 ; 396 ( 10263 ): 1689 – 1702 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [3]. ↵ Pasricha PJ , Grover M , Yates KP , Abell TL , Bernard CE , Koch KL , et al. Functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis in tertiary care are interchangeable syndromes with common clinical and pathologic features . Gastroenterology . 2021 ; 160 ( 6 ): 2006 – 2017 . OpenUrl PubMed [4]. ↵ O’Grady G , Carbone F , Tack J. Gastric sensorimotor function and its clinical measurement . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2022 ; 34 ( 12 ): e14489 . OpenUrl PubMed [5]. ↵ Wauters L , Dickman R , Drug V , Mulak A , Serra J , Enck P , et al. United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) consensus on functional dyspepsia . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2021 ; 33 ( 9 ): e14238 . OpenUrl PubMed [6]. Schol J , Wauters L , Dickman R , Drug V , Mulak A , Serra J , et al. United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) consensus on gastroparesis . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2021 ; 33 ( 8 ): e14237 . OpenUrl PubMed [7]. ↵ Lacy BE , Tack J , Gyawali CP . AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Medically Refractory Gastroparesis: Expert Review . Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol . 2022 ; 20 ( 3 ): 491 – 500 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [8]. ↵ Tack J , Carbone F , Holvoet L , Vanheel H , Vanuytsel T , Vandenberghe A. The use of pictograms improves symptom evaluation by patients with functional dyspepsia . Aliment Pharmacol Ther . 2014 ; 40 ( 5 ): 523 – 530 . OpenUrl PubMed [9]. ↵ Gharibans AA , Calder S , Varghese C , Waite S , Schamberg G , Daker C , et al. Gastric dysfunction in patients with chronic nausea and vomiting syndromes defined by a noninvasive gastric mapping device . Sci Transl Med . 2022 ; 14 ( 663 ): eabq3544 . OpenUrl PubMed [10]. ↵ Gharibans AA , Hayes TCL , Carson DA , Calder S , Varghese C , Du P , et al. A novel scalable electrode array and system for non-invasively assessing gastric function using flexible electronics . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2023 ; 35 ( 2 ): e14418 . OpenUrl PubMed [11]. ↵ Humphrey G , Keane C , Gharibans A , Andrews CN , Benitez A , Mousa H , et al. Designing, developing, and validating a set of standardized pictograms to support pediatric-reported gastroduodenal symptoms . J Pediatr . 2024 ; 267 ( 113922 ): 113922 . OpenUrl PubMed [12]. ↵ Sebaratnam G , Karulkar N , Calder S , Woodhead JST , Keane C , Carson DA , et al. Standardized system and App for continuous patient symptom logging in gastroduodenal disorders: Design, implementation, and validation . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2022 ; 34 ( 8 ): e14331 . OpenUrl PubMed [13]. ↵ Varghese C , Schamberg G , Uren E , Calder S , Law M , Foong D , et al. A standardized classification scheme for gastroduodenal disorder evaluation using the gastric alimetry system: Prospective cohort study . Gastro Hep Adv . Published online September 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.09.002 OpenUrl CrossRef [14]. Xu W , Gharibans AA , Calder S , Schamberg G , Walters A , Jang J , et al. Defining and Phenotyping Gastric Abnormalities in Long-Term Type 1 Diabetes Using a Novel Body Surface Gastric Mapping Device . Gastro Hep Adv . 2023 ; 2 ( 8 ): 1120 – 1132 . OpenUrl PubMed [15]. ↵ Wang WJ , Foong D , Calder S , Schamberg G , Varghese C , Tack J , et al. Gastric Alimetry Expands Patient Phenotyping in Gastroduodenal Disorders Compared with Gastric Emptying Scintigraphy . Am J Gastroenterol . 2024 ; 119 ( 2 ): 331 – 341 . OpenUrl PubMed [16]. ↵ Guadagnoli L , Abber S , Geeraerts A , Geysen H , Pauwels A , Tack J , et al. Physiological and Psychological Factors Contribute to Real-Time Esophageal Symptom Reporting in Patients With Refractory Reflux . Am J Gastroenterol . Published online August 20, 2024. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003033 OpenUrl CrossRef [17]. ↵ Bosman M , Vork L , Jonkers D , Snijkers J , Topan R , Aziz Q , et al. Results From a Psychometric Validation Study: Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Report Higher Symptom Burden Using End-of-Day Vs Real-Time Assessment . Am J Gastroenterol . Published online September 23, 2024. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003091 OpenUrl CrossRef [18]. ↵ Duboc H , Latrache S , Nebunu N , Coffin B. The Role of Diet in Functional Dyspepsia Management . Front Psychiatry . 2020 ; 11 : 23 . Published 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00023 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [19]. ↵ Kuwelker S , Prichard DO , Bailey K , Bharucha AE . Relationship between symptoms during a gastric emptying study, daily symptoms and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus . Neurogastroenterol Motil . 2021 ; 33 ( 12 ): e14154 . OpenUrl PubMed [20]. Humphrey G , Keane C , Schamberg G , Benitez A , Calder S , Xu B , et al. Body Surface Gastric Mapping delineates specific patient phenotypes in adolescents with functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis . medRxiv . Published online May 14, 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.05.13.24307307 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [21]. ↵ Tack J , Corsetti M , Camilleri M , Quigley EM , Simren M , Suzuki H , et al. Plausibility criteria for putative pathophysiological mechanisms in functional gastrointestinal disorders: a consensus of experts . Gut . 2018 ; 67 ( 8 ): 1425 – 1433 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [22]. ↵ Law M , Pickering I , Humphrey G , Sebaratnam G , Schamberg G , Simpson K , et al. Development and validation of the Alimetry Gut-Brain Wellbeing Survey: a novel patient-reported mental health scale for patients with chronic gastroduodenal symptoms . Front Psychol . 2024 ; 15 : 1389671 . OpenUrl PubMed [23]. ↵ Sperber AD , Bangdiwala SI , Drossman DA , Ghoshal UC , Simren M , Tack J , et al. Worldwide Prevalence and Burden of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, Results of Rome Foundation Global Study . Gastroenterology . 2021 ; 160 ( 1 ): 99 – 114.e3 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted February 21, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria Armen A. Gharibans , I-Hsuan Huang , Chris Varghese , Gabriel Schamberg , Sarvnaz Taherian , Nicky Dachs , Mikaela Law , Stefan Calder , Christopher N. Andrews , Jan Tack , Greg O’Grady medRxiv 2025.02.19.25322571; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.19.25322571 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Novel Digital Gastric Alimetry® Symptom Scales for Use in Gastroduodenal Disorders and Validation against Rome IV Criteria Armen A. Gharibans , I-Hsuan Huang , Chris Varghese , Gabriel Schamberg , Sarvnaz Taherian , Nicky Dachs , Mikaela Law , Stefan Calder , Christopher N. Andrews , Jan Tack , Greg O’Grady medRxiv 2025.02.19.25322571; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.19.25322571 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Gastroenterology Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (568) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (300) Cardiovascular Medicine (4435) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (444) Dermatology (382) Emergency Medicine (608) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1509) Epidemiology (15229) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1124) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6600) Geriatric Medicine (668) Health Economics (997) Health Informatics (4536) Health Policy (1368) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1613) Hematology (541) HIV/AIDS (1264) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15916) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (623) Medical Ethics (146) Nephrology (667) Neurology (6599) Nursing (346) Nutrition (998) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1144) Occupational and Environmental Health (957) Oncology (3332) Ophthalmology (974) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (436) Palliative Medicine (130) Pathology (663) Pediatrics (1693) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (691) Primary Care Research (711) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5447) Public and Global Health (9231) Radiology and Imaging (2198) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1370) Respiratory Medicine (1196) Rheumatology (593) Sexual and Reproductive Health (712) Sports Medicine (530) Surgery (712) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (289) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a00793d4ae233fe2',t:'MTc3OTU3NjE4NQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();