ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2021
Effects of magnetogastrography sensor configurations in tracking slow wave propagation.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing biomagnetic sensor performance throughiScience · 2024Article
- Stomach Geometry Reconstruction Using Serosal Transmitting Coils and Magnetic Source Localization.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023Article
- Characterizing Spatial Signatures of Gastric Electrical Activity Using Biomagnetic Source Localization.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetogastrography (MGG) is a non-invasive method of assessing gastric slow waves (SWs) by recording the resultant magnetic fields. MGG can capture both SW frequency and propagation, and identify SW dysrhythmias that are associated with motility disorders. However, the impact of the restricted spatial coverage and sensor density on SW propagation tracking performance is unknown. This study simulated MGG using multiple anatomically specific torso geometries and two realistic SW propagation patterns to determine the effect of different sensor configurations on tracking SW propagation. The surface current density mapping and center-of-gravity tracking methods were used to compare four magnetometer array configurations: a reference system currently used in GI research and three hypothetical higher density and coverage arrays. SW propagation patterns identified with two hypothetical arrays (with coverage over at least the anterior of the torso) correlated significantly higher with simulated realistic 3 cycle-per-minute SW activity than the reference array (p = 0.016, p = 0.005). Furthermore, results indicated that most of the magnetic fields that contribute to the performance of SW propagation tracking were located on the anterior of the torso as further increasing the coverage did not significantly increase performance. A 30% decrease in sensor spacing within the same spatial coverage of the reference array also significantly increased correlation values by approximately 0.50 when the signal-to-noise ratio was 5 dB. This study provides evidence that higher density and coverage sensor layouts will improve the utility of MGG. Further work is required to investigate optimum sensor configurations across larger anatomical variations and other SW propagation patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.