The association between celiac disease and eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An association between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and celiac disease (CD) has been suggested in the literature. Our aim was to confirm and quantify the association between these two diseases. METHODS: All patients in a large Canadian city diagnosed with EoE or CD over a five-year period were identified. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Over the five-year study EoE was diagnosed in 421 patients and CD was diagnosed in 763 patients. The incidence of EoE ranged from 2.1 to 10.7 cases per 100,000 population. The incidence of CD ranged from 10.4 to 15.7 cases per 100,000 population. Among the EoE cohort, 83 (20%) cases of EoE and 245 (32%) cases of CD were diagnosed in pediatric patients. The incidence of EoE in the pediatric subpopulation ranged from 3.7 to 6.9 cases per 100,000 population. The incidence of CD in the pediatric subpopulation ranged from 9.5 to 22.7 cases per 100,000 population. The concomitant diagnosis of both EoE and CD was made in three patients, all of whom were pediatric males. The SIR for EoE in the CD cohort was 48.4 (95% CI = 9.73, 141.41) with a SIR for CD within the paediatric EoE cohort of 75.05 (95% CI = 15.08, 219.28). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the association between EoE and CD. However, this association may be limited to pediatrics where the risk of each condition is increased 50 to 75-fold in patients diagnosed with the alternative condition. The concomitant diagnosis of these conditions should be considered in pediatric patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".