Celiac Disease: Are Endomysial Antibody Test Results Being Used Appropriately?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine how positive IgA-endomysial antibody (EMA) test results for celiac disease were being interpreted and acted on by physicians in the Calgary Health Region. METHODS: We reviewed consecutive EMA test results, with or without a serum IgA, obtained during a 17-month period. Seropositive tests were cross-referenced to the surgical database to determine the number of patients who underwent intestinal biopsy and the results of the biopsy. We sent questionnaires to the ordering physicians of positive tests with no record of intestinal biopsy. RESULTS: Among 11,716 EMA tests in 9533 patients, 349 results were positive in 313 patients (3%). Intestinal biopsies were performed in 218 (70%) of the seropositive patients; 194 of them were diagnostic of celiac disease. Celiac disease was also found in 10 EMA-negative patients. Of the 109 positive tests performed in 95 patients with no subsequent biopsy, 28 had appropriate indications to not perform a biopsy; the most common reason being that the test had been ordered to follow up on a previous biopsy-proven diagnosis of celiac disease (n = 21). For 33 other positive test results without a subsequent biopsy, management appeared to be inappropriate, most commonly (n = 21) because of a recommendation to follow a gluten-free diet despite lack of a tissue diagnosis of celiac disease. For the remaining 48 positive EMA results, administrative issues prevented evaluation (n = 19), the patients refused further evaluation (n = 11), or physician surveys were not returned (n = 18). CONCLUSIONS: Celiac disease affected 2% of patients, with a similar prevalence in male and female patients. Most positive EMA tests (77%) were appropriately managed by physicians. Beginning a gluten-free diet without biopsy or failing to follow up on a positive EMA test remain common errors of management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".