“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.
“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.
In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.
Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”
Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.
In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.
Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?
A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.
The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?
Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?
A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.
There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.
Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.
Lightning Round
Favorite sport: Soccer
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music
Introvert or extrovert? Introvert
Favorite holiday: Christmas
Optimist or pessimist? Realist
Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.