MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922480872 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.136

A137 TISSUE-TRANSGLUTAMINASE ANTIBODY HIGHER THAN 10 TIMES THE NORMAL VALUE IS A RELIABLE PREDICTIVE TEST OF VILLOUS ATROPHY IN PATIENTS WITH SUSPICION OF CELIAC DISEASE

2019· article· en· W2922480872 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thùy Anh Nguyễn, Olivia Portolese, Natalie Patey, Dorothée Dal Soglio, Luc L. Oligny, M Dirks, Prévost Jantchou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTissue transglutaminaseHepatologyGold standard (test)Pediatric gastroenterologyReceiver operating characteristicGastroenterologyVillous atrophyInternal medicineAntibodyProspective cohort studyDiseasePre- and post-test probabilityPathologyCoeliac diseaseImmunologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue-transglutaminase antibody (tTGA) is a dependable test for patients with suspicion of celiac disease (CD). Since 2012, the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) has suggested that the diagnostic of CD could be established if tTGA levels are greater than 10 times the normal value (10N). Nonetheless, this has not been adopted in North America where endoscopies with biopsies still remain the gold standard for CD diagnosis. Several studies have been conducted in Europe to validate the ESPGHAN guidelines but none in children in Canada. To assess the reliability of the tTGA cut-off value of 10 times the normal level for the diagnosis of CD. Hence, the primary aim was to analyse the performance of the tTGA test in patients with suspicion of CD. The secondary aim was to assess whether a different cut-off value (25N) would perform better. Baseline tTGA levels and histological results were collected and analysed in a prospective cohort of children with a suspicion of CD seen at the gastroenterology unit of Sainte-Justine Hospital between 2011 and 2018. The tTGA kit used in the study was INOVA Diagnostics’ kit Quanta Lite (R) h-tTG IgA ELISA. The histological results of duodenal biopsies were considered as indicative of CD if the Marsh classification was ≥2. With a cut-off tTGA value of 40 UI/mL (10N), we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV), the specificity and the receiver operating curve (ROC) curve. In addition, analyses were performed for a cut-off value of 100 UI/mL (25N). All analyses were carried out with SAS Statistical Software 9.4. 272 patients were included in the study. The median age (Interquartile range(IQR)) at diagnosis was 8.9 (5.60,12.05) years. CD was confirmed by biopsy in 234 cases. The tTGA level was higher than 10N in 155 (56.99%) children and more than 25N in 121 (44.49%) children. Using a tTGA cut-off of 40 UI/mL, the PPV was 99.35% (95% CI: 96.46%-99.98%), the specificity was 97.37% (95% CI : 86.19%-99.93%) and the area under curve (AUC) was 0.933. For a tTGA level >100 UI/mL, the PPV and specificity were respectively 99.17% (95% CI: 95.48%-99.98%) and 97.37% (95% CI : 86.19%-99.93%). Only 1 child in the study had a false positive: a 2-year old with tTGA >100 UI/mL and a normal biopsy. However, the tTGA control performed the day of the biopsy turned out normal. This study validates the reliability of the tTGA test when using a cut-off level of 10 and 25 times the normal value since specificity and PPV results were high. These findings suggest that in children with suspicion of CD half of the endoscopies could be avoided. Therefore, a change in the diagnostic approach of CD in children could be implemented in Quebec. None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207