From the Research
The GI-Map is not a recommended test due to its poor specificity and high rate of false positive results, which can lead to unnecessary treatments and increased morbidity. The study published in Access Microbiology in 2020 1 evaluated the performance of the GI-MAP assay and found it to have a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of only 26%, compared to the BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel which achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. This significant variability and poor specificity of the GI-MAP assay can cause clinicians to treat patients with antibacterial and/or antiparasitic agents in the absence of any true pathogens, potentially leading to increased morbidity and mortality.
The clinical utility of the GI-Map is limited and controversial, and many healthcare providers consider it overpriced and overhyped compared to standard stool testing. The test claims to provide comprehensive analysis of gut microbiome, pathogens, parasites, and inflammatory markers, but many of its interpretations lack strong scientific consensus. Most conventional medical doctors don't order or rely on GI-Map testing because much of the information it provides doesn't clearly translate to specific, evidence-based treatments.
Some key points to consider when evaluating the GI-Map include:
- Poor specificity and high rate of false positive results
- Limited clinical utility and controversial interpretations
- High cost and lack of insurance coverage
- Availability of more effective and targeted testing options, such as conventional stool testing ordered by a gastroenterologist.
In contrast, the BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel has been shown to be a more accurate and reliable testing option, with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% 1. Therefore, the GI-Map is not a recommended test for diagnosing or managing gastrointestinal disorders, and alternative testing options should be considered.