MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528527650 · doi:10.1111/apt.13793

Letter: gastritis in paediatric patients with coeliac disease – authors' reply

2016· letter· en· W2528527650 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Lebwohl, P. H. R. Green, Robert M. Genta

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoeliac diseaseMedicineGastritisGastroenterologyGluten freeGlutenStomachInternal medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the comments by Banaszkiewicz et al., describing gastritis in 197 children with coeliac disease who underwent concurrent duodenal and gastric biopsies.1, 2 In addition to their focus on children (as compared to our study which describes gastritis in subjects of all ages) and the availability of coeliac disease serologies, this report builds upon our study by including duration of symptoms, a variable that was not available in our analysis. Additional clinical data that would be worth evaluating in future analyses of the ‘coeliac stomach’ include the presence of iron deficiency (which may be exacerbated by gastritis) and the use of acid suppression medications, which affect the gastric milieu and may modulate the risk of coeliac disease.3 We would also like to know how these gastritis subtypes change after institution of the gluten-free diet, or during a gluten challenge in an individual whose coeliac disease status is uncertain. In this era of emerging nondietary therapies for coeliac disease,4 the stomach may be another biomarker for gluten exposure in a subset of individuals. The authors' declarations of personal and financial interests are unchanged from those in the original article.2

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0210.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207