MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257900009

Serologic testing in celiac disease: Practical guide for clinicians.

2016· article· en· W2257900009 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsin Rashid, Jennie Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyMedicineDiseaseTissue transglutaminaseCoeliac diseaseImmunoglobulin AMEDLINEGluten freeAntibodyImmunologyInternal medicineGastroenterologyPathologyImmunoglobulin G
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To address the questions and challenges commonly faced by primary care physicians when ordering serologic tests for celiac disease (CD) and provide practical clinical tips to help in the interpretation of test results. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: MEDLINE was searched from 2000 to 2015 for English-language guidelines on the diagnosis and management of CD published by professional gastroenterological organizations. MAIN MESSAGE: To screen patients for CD, measurement of the immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase antibody is the preferred test. Total serum IgA level should be measured to exclude selective IgA deficiency and to avoid false-negative test results. Patients with positive serologic test results should be referred to a gastroenterologist for endoscopic small intestinal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis. Testing for human leukocyte antigens DQ2 and DQ8 can help exclude the diagnosis. A gluten-free diet should not be started before confirming the diagnosis of CD. CONCLUSION: Serologic testing is very useful for screening patients with suspected CD. Early diagnosis is essential to prevent complications of CD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.023

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207