MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003655577 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.5.155

Pre-endoscopic serological test with duodenal biopsy in high risk patients had high sensitivity and low specificity for coeliac disease

2007· letter· en· W2003655577 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Lewis, Richard F. Logan

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoeliac diseaseMedicineSerologyGastroenterologyBiopsyInternal medicineDiseaseImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hopper AD, Cross SS, Hurlstone DP, et al . Pre-endoscopy serological testing for coeliac disease: evaluation of a clinical decision tool. BMJ 2007;334:729. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does a clinical decision tool (CDT) based on pre-endoscopic serological testing with duodenal biopsy for high risk patients accurately diagnose coeliac disease? Clinical impact ratings Gastroenterology ★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: 2 cohort studies, 1 for derivation and 1 for validation. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Setting: endoscopy department at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Patients: 1464 patients in the retrospective derivation cohort and 2000 patients 16–94 years of age (mean age 56 y, 58% women) in the prospective validation cohort who were referred for gastroscopy. Exclusion criteria were previously known coeliac disease, coagulopathy (international normalised ratio >1.3 or platelets <80 x 109/l), active gastrointestinal bleeding, or suspected cancer. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Description of prediction guide: the CDT combined pre-endoscopic serological testing (tissue transglutaminase [TTG] antibody) and assessment of symptoms to identify patients at high or low risk of coeliac disease. The CDT was modified in the validation … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.39133.668681.BE%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17383983%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=334/7596/729&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F5%2F155.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207