MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237457304 · doi:10.4103/1319-3767.173767

Celiac disease among symptom-free children-more than what is expected

2016· letter· en· W2237457304 on OpenAlexaff
Majid A. Almadi, AbdulrahmanM Aljebreen

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSerologyAsymptomaticSeroprevalenceDiseasePopulationTissue transglutaminaseInternal medicinePathologyGastroenterologyImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We read with interest the study by Al Hatlani[1] on the prevalence of celiac disease among an asymptomatic population of children in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. We commend the author on his work and believe that his findings do replicate that of our study.[2] We do have a concern on the reported histological prevalence of celiac disease in the sample population. The author reported that 32 of the 1141 serum samples were positive for celiac, which would indicate a seroprevalence of 2.8%. Only 10 of those who were positive underwent an endoscopy with histological findings that confirmed the serological test. The author suggested that the histologically proven prevalence is only 1%, which implies that the author presumed that the 22 patients that refused endoscopy would have had a negative histology. That presumption would only be true if those that had refused the biopsies were different in any way from those that agreed to undergo duodenal biopsies, which the author did not demonstrate in the manuscript. Furthermore, we know that the test performance of the anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies have a high sensitivity (95%) and specificity (94%)[3] and most probably if endoscopies had been performed on those who had refused, the serological and histological prevalence would have been similar. Also, the author suggested that screening for celiac disease should be undertaken. We argue that such a strategy is not so clear and there are arguments that go against that recommendation including the age of initiation of serological screening and whether treating asymptomatic patients changes the natural history of the disease.[4] So at least we would say that such a statement is open to debate. In addition we wanted to point out that the study by Aljebreen et al.[2] was conducted on a population of adolescents that were attending schools in different regions of the kingdom thus the author's statement that his study would be the first of its kind would be inaccurate. Again we commend the author on his effort and believe that his study has an added value to the region. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207