Review: IgA endomyseal and transglutaminase antibodies had high specificity for diagnosis of coeliac disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A, et al . The diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease: a systematic review. Gastroenterology 2005;128:S38–46. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the test properties of antigliadin antibody (AGA), endomyseal antibody (EMA), and transglutaminase antibody (tTG) and their subtypes for diagnosis of coeliac disease in children and adults? Clinical impact ratings Gastroenterology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline (1966 to October 2003) and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1974–2003). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: studies that allowed extraction of sensitivity and specificity data and had no fatal methodological flaws. Exclusion criteria: control group did not receive the gold standard (biopsy), biopsy criteria not described, patient disease status for the test under consideration was known, control groups included patients with Marsh I or II biopsy lesions, or AGA tests done without a commercial ELISA kit or before 1990. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Outcomes: sensitivity and specificity. 55 studies met the selection … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGastroenterology%26rft.stitle%253DGastroenterology%26rft.aulast%253DRostom%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D128%26rft.issue%253D4%2BSuppl%2B1%26rft.spage%253DS38%26rft.epage%253DS46%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Bdiagnostic%2Baccuracy%2Bof%2Bserologic%2Btests%2Bfor%2Bceliac%2Bdisease%253A%2Ba%2Bsystematic%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1053%252Fj.gastro.2005.02.028%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15825125%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.gastro.2005.02.028&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15825125&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F1%2F25.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228337000006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".