Colonic immune cells in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background & Aims Increases in mucosal immune cells have frequently been observed in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. However, this finding is not completely consistent between studies, possibly due to a combination of methodological variability, population differences and small sample sizes. We performed a meta‐analysis of case–control studies that compared immune cell counts in colonic biopsies of IBS patients and controls. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched in February 2017. Results were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) and were considered significant when zero was not within the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed based on I2 statistics where I2 ≤ 50% and I2 > 50% indicated fixed and random effect models, respectively. Key Results Twenty‐two studies on 706 IBS patients and 401 controls were included. Mast cells were increased in the rectosigmoid (SMD: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.06‐0.71]; P = .02) and descending colon (SMD: 1.69 [95% CI: 0.65‐2.73]; P = .001) of IBS patients. Increased mast cells were observed in both constipation (IBS‐C) and diarrhea predominant IBS (IBS‐D). CD3+ T cells were increased in the rectosigmoid (SMD: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.21‐0.85]; P = .001) and the descending colon of the IBS patients (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI [0.28‐1.30]; P = .002). This was possibly in relation to higher CD4+ T cells in IBS (SMD: 0.33 [95% CI: 0.01‐0.65]; P = .04) as there were no differences in CD8+ T cells. Conclusions & Inferences Mast cells and CD3+ T cells are increased in colonic biopsies of patients with IBS vs non‐inflamed controls. These changes are segmental and sometimes IBS‐subtype dependent. The diagnostic value of the quantification of colonic mucosal cells in IBS requires further investigation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".