MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602717122 · doi:10.1111/his.13228

The pathology and causes of tissue eosinophilia in the gastrointestinal tract

2017· review· en· W2602717122 on OpenAlexaff
James Conner, Richard Kirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophiliaEosinophilicGastrointestinal tractPathologyPathologicalMedicineNatural historyEosinophilic gastroenteritisDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eosinophilic inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract may occur as a primary eosinophilic disorder or as a secondary response with other causes. Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are Th2-mediated allergic diseases that overlap pathogenetically with atopic conditions involving other organs. The pathological diagnosis of primary EGIDs can be challenging, as the quantity of eosinophils considered to be 'abnormal' is difficult to define, and the diagnosis, by definition, requires exclusion of the far more common secondary causes. Our understanding of the basic biology and natural history of eosinophilic oesophagitis has advanced considerably over the last decade, whereas other EGIDs have proven more difficult to characterize; nonetheless, some recent advances have been made. This review summarizes current knowledge regarding the clinical presentation, diagnosis, natural history and treatment of EGIDs, including eosinophilic oesophagitis. We also draw attention to the numerous secondary causes of tissue eosinophilia in the gastrointestinal tract, and suggest a practical approach to the histological assessment, diagnosis and reporting of EGIDs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207