Similar subclinical enthesitis in celiac and inflammatory bowel diseases by ultrasound suggests a gut enthesis axis independent of spondyloarthropathy spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Higher subclinical enthesitis on US has been reported in IBD and celiac disease, separately. The objective of this study was to compare IBD and celiac disease for enthesitis on US. Higher enthesitis scores in IBD compared with celiac disease would support a shared pathogenic mechanism between IBD and spondyloarthritis, whereas similar scores may suggest a general impact of gut inflammation on the enthesis. Methods: Patients with IBD, celiac disease and healthy controls (HCs) were recruited and 12 entheses were scanned by US, blind to the diagnosis and clinical assessment. Elementary lesions for enthesitis were scored on a scale between 0 and 3, for inflammation, damage and total US scores. Results: A total of 1260 entheses were scanned in 44 patients with celiac disease, 43 patients with IBD and 18 HCs. The three groups were matched for age and BMI. Patients with celiac disease and IBD had higher inflammation scores than HCs [10.4 (6.5), 9.6 (5.4) and 5.6 (5.2), respectively, P = 0.007) whereas damage scores were similar. Both age and BMI had significant effects on the entheseal scores, mostly for inflammation scores but when controlling for these the US enthesopathy scores were still higher in celiac disease and IBD. Conclusion: The magnitude of subclinical enthesopathy scores is similar between celiac disease and IBD in comparison with HCs. These findings suggest that the common factor between both diseases and enthesopathy is abnormal gut permeability, which may be modified by the genetic architecture of IBD leading to clinical arthropathy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".