Gluten-Free Diet Does Not Appear to Induce Endoscopic Remission of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children with Coexistent Celiac Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Celiac disease and eosinophilic esophagitis are usually considered to be separate gastrointestinal diseases; however, it appears that they may coexist more often than would be expected. It is unknown whether eosinophilic esophagitis in patients with celiac disease responds to a gluten-free diet. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical, endoscopic and histological features of children with both conditions to evaluate whether eosinophilic esophagitis responds to a gluten-free diet. METHODS: From January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2011, the medical records of children <18 years of age diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis and⁄or celiac disease were reviewed. Patients with clinical, endoscopic and histological diagnoses of both diseases were identified and included. These findings were analyzed, as were laboratory results, treatment and follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 206 celiac disease patients, 86 eosinophilic esophagitis patients and nine (4.4% of total celiac) patients with both diagnoses. Gluten-free diet was the primary treatment for both conditions in seven of nine (78%) cases. In six of these seven (86%) patients, no endoscopic or histological improvement of eosinophilic esophagitis was observed, while in one patient, histological remission of esophageal eosinophilia occurred while on a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in patients with celiac disease was 4.4%, confirming a higher than expected prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis compared with the general population. In patients with celiac disease, a gluten-free diet did not appear to induce remission of coexistent endoscopic and histological features of eosinophilic esophagitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".