Meta‐analysis: yield of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease in dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) may be increased in individuals with dyspepsia, but evidence is conflicting. AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence of CD in dyspepsia. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to February 2009. Case series and case-control studies applying serological tests and/or distal duodenal biopsy for CD to unselected adults with dyspepsia were eligible. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology and biopsy-proven CD were pooled for all studies and compared between cases and controls using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology was higher in cases with dyspepsia (7.9%) compared with controls (3.9%), but not significantly so (OR for positive endomysial antibodies or tissue transglutaminase 1.89; 95% CI 0.90-3.99). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD following positive serology was also higher (3.2% in cases vs. 1.3% in controls), but again this was not statistically significant (OR 2.85; 95% CI 0.60-13.38). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD was 1% in ten studies performing duodenal biopsy first-line. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in subjects with dyspepsia was 1% and was higher than in controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.
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 | 0.027 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".