Importance of duodenal bulb biopsies in children for diagnosis of celiac disease in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The patchy nature of villous lesion in celiac disease is increasingly being recognized. Current guidelines recommend four endoscopic duodenal mucosal biopsies from the second or more distal part of the duodenum to confirm the diagnosis of celiac disease. The purpose of the study was to investigate the usefulness of duodenal bulb mucosal biopsies in confirming the diagnosis of celiac disease in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: All patients with a positive tissue-transglutaminase antibody requiring biopsy-confirmation of celiac disease over a two-year period were studied. Two endoscopic biopsies were taken from the duodenal bulb and four biopsies from the second (or distal) part of the duodenum. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included, mean age 8.1 (+/- 4.7) years. Thirty-one (88.6%) patients had abnormal distal duodenal biopsies, one had Marsh type 1, one had Marsh type 2 and twenty-nine had Marsh type 3 lesion. All but two patients with abnormal distal duodenal biopsies also had abnormal bulb biopsies. Four (11.4%) patients had normal distal duodenal biopsies but abnormal bulb biopsies. Of these, one patient had Marsh type 2 and three had Marsh type 3 lesion. The distal duodenum was also grossly normal in these four patients. The histological diagnosis of celiac disease would not have been possible in these four cases with distal duodenal biopsies only. CONCLUSION: The lesion in celiac disease in children can be patchy with duodenal bulb mucosa being the only area showing histological changes. The recommendations regarding the site of biopsies should be revised to include biopsies not only from distal duodenum but also from bulb to improve the diagnostic yield.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".