Revisiting Pathological Criteria for Earlier Diagnosis of Coeliac Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD) remains sometimes difficult because the histological criteria are not fully met. The aim of this study was to refine histological diagnostic criteria of CD. METHODS: One hundred seventy-five duodenal bulb D1 (n = 79) and duodenal D2 (n = 96) biopsies of 96 patients with CD (58 girls, mean age 7 years), 135 normal D2 biopsies (69 girls, mean age 12 years), and 64 D2 biopsies of other digestive disorders (DDs) (39 girls, mean age 13 years) obtained from children during a period of 4 years were reviewed. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was greater for the classification of Corazza-Villanacci than for Marsh-Oberhuber (κ = 0.812 vs κ = 0.409, respectively). Between 40 and 70 intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) per 100 epithelial cells (ECs), 32% of patients were CD, whereas 50% had other DD. Above 70 IELs per 100 EC, 53% were CD, and only 6% had other DD. In CD, IELs were significantly located above EC nuclei compared with other DD, (12 IELs/100 EC vs 2 IELs/100 EC, respectively). In 21% of CD cases, D2 were normal and the diagnosis could only be made on D1. Finally, 6% of CD cases showed isolated increase of IELs in D1 without architectural modification. CONCLUSIONS: D1 allowed diagnosis of CD in 21% of cases and IEL >70 per 100 EC correlated strongly with CD. Between 40 and 70 IELs per 100 EC, CD is very likely but other DD must be considered. Finally, the preferential localisation of IELs above EC nuclei favours CD, and increased IEL in D1 may be the sole abnormality.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, 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".