Celiac disease among symptom-free children-more than what is expected
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir, We read with interest the study by Al Hatlani[1] on the prevalence of celiac disease among an asymptomatic population of children in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. We commend the author on his work and believe that his findings do replicate that of our study.[2] We do have a concern on the reported histological prevalence of celiac disease in the sample population. The author reported that 32 of the 1141 serum samples were positive for celiac, which would indicate a seroprevalence of 2.8%. Only 10 of those who were positive underwent an endoscopy with histological findings that confirmed the serological test. The author suggested that the histologically proven prevalence is only 1%, which implies that the author presumed that the 22 patients that refused endoscopy would have had a negative histology. That presumption would only be true if those that had refused the biopsies were different in any way from those that agreed to undergo duodenal biopsies, which the author did not demonstrate in the manuscript. Furthermore, we know that the test performance of the anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies have a high sensitivity (95%) and specificity (94%)[3] and most probably if endoscopies had been performed on those who had refused, the serological and histological prevalence would have been similar. Also, the author suggested that screening for celiac disease should be undertaken. We argue that such a strategy is not so clear and there are arguments that go against that recommendation including the age of initiation of serological screening and whether treating asymptomatic patients changes the natural history of the disease.[4] So at least we would say that such a statement is open to debate. In addition we wanted to point out that the study by Aljebreen et al.[2] was conducted on a population of adolescents that were attending schools in different regions of the kingdom thus the author's statement that his study would be the first of its kind would be inaccurate. Again we commend the author on his effort and believe that his study has an added value to the region. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».