Celiac Disease Alone and Associated With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate complication screening and follow-up patterns in a population with type 1 diabetes mellitus and celiac disease (T1D/CD) in relation to a matched cohort with celiac disease (CD) alone at our center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the health charts of 41 children with T1D and biopsy-proven CD and compared anthropometrics and complication of screening within 2 years from CD diagnosis. Follow-up patterns were determined 3 years postdiagnosis. This population was then compared with a population with both symptomatic and asymptomatic CD matched for age and sex. RESULTS: In comparison with T1D/CD, patients with CD alone had a significantly lower height, weight and body mass index (BMI z score 0.01 vs 0.81, P = 0.001) and higher rates of screening for anemia (95% vs 71%, P = 0.003) and bone health (49% vs 29%, P = 0.05). Minimal rates of laboratory abnormalities were observed in either group, irrespective of symptoms at presentation, but CD alone more often presented with anemia than T1D/CD. Repeat serology testing was significantly more frequently performed in the T1D/CD group. Follow-up was equally variable with a median of 3 (range 0-4) visits with a gastroenterologist during the first 3 years postdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients with T1D/CD represent a distinct and possibly milder phenotype from CD alone. Complication screening was variable and negative for the majority of the patients. Guidelines for follow-up may need to be tailored to specific groups to standardize evaluation and complication screening, especially with regard to bone health.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".