A261 INCIDENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE IS INCREASING OVER TIME: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of celiac disease is estimated to be approximately 1%. However, the rate at which diagnoses have changed over time remains unknown. To analyze the incidence of celiac disease across time. We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 2018, to identify all population-based studies reporting the incidence of celiac disease (n = 47). Temporal trend analyses captured the average annual percent change (AAPC) in celiac disease incidence over time. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to determine sex and age differences in celiac disease incidence in the 21st century, as well as temporal trends (AAPCs) from 1990 to 2016. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. In the 21st century, the pooled female incidence of celiac disease was 17.4 (95% CI: 13.7, 21.0) per 100,000 person-years, compared to 7.8 (95% CI: 6.3, 9.3) in males. Child-specific incidence was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 16.0, 24.3) compared to 13.2 (95% CI: 8.6, 17.8) in adults. Incidence of celiac disease appeared to be relatively low and stable until the 1990s (Figure 1), wherein diagnoses started to increase annually at 8.4% (95% CI: 6.0, 10.8) per year (Table 1). The incidence of celiac disease is significantly rising. Celiac disease is disproportionately diagnosed in females and children, respectively. Table 1: Pooled AAPC of celiac disease incidence from 1990 to 2016 Table 1: Pooled AAPC of celiac disease incidence from 1990 to 2016 Figure 1: Trends in the overall incidence of celiac disease Canadian Celiac Association
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".