Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dermatitis herpetiformis and coeliac disease are gluten sensitive diseases, which have common immunopathological and genetic mechanisms. Neuropsychiatric complications have been reported in up to 26% of patients with coeliac disease. This is probably an overestimate, because of the chance associations with some common neurological conditions such as epilepsy. The pathogenesis is speculative but it has been postulated that gluten is neurotoxic possibly via immune mechanisms. The frequency of neurological dysfunction in patients with dermatitis herpetiformis has not been characterised. Patients with dermatitis herpetiformis might be expected to be particularly susceptible to neuronal damage as some continue to consume gluten when their dermatological symptoms are controlled by dapsone. Thirty five patients were recruited with dermatitis herpetiformis from dermatology clinics at St Mary's Hospital, London and Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham and investigated for evidence of neurological abnormality. All patients underwent a full neurological examination and were asked about their neurological and general medical history by means of a structured questionnaire. Serum samples were taken and screened for the presence of anti-neuronal antibodies (anti-Hu and Yo) as well as anti-gliadin (IgA and G) anti-endomysial (IgA), and anti-tissue transglutaminase (IgA) antibodies. Neurophysiological tests were carried out where appropriate. Only two patients were identified with unexplained neurological abnormalities (one essential tremor, and one chorea). Two other patients had a history of migraine. The patient with chorea also had borderline/equivocally positive anti-Hu antibodies by immunofluorescence assay. All other samples were negative for anti-neuronal antibodies. Fifteen patients were positive for anti-gliadin antibodies (IgA and/or IgG), four for anti-endomysial antibodies (monkey oesophagus or umbilical cord), and six for anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies. The presence of these antibodies did not correlate with the presence of neurological abnormalities. No cases of "gluten ataxia" were identified. In conclusion, there was no convincing evidence for immune mediated neurological damage in this pilot study of dermatitis herpetiformis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".