Duodenal Bulb Histology in Paediatric Celiac Disease: A Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about optimal methods for duodenal biopsy in diagnosis of celiac disease (CD), in terms of both number of samples and anatomic location. The reliability of duodenal bulb biopsy has been questioned given that normal bulb architecture may mimic disease. However, multiple studies have reported patients with CD have histopathological lesions limited to proximal changes in the duodenal bulb alone. METHODS: We retrospectively compared duodenal and duodenal bulb histology in a population of paediatric patients with CD and compared with a population of nonceliac controls at Stollery Children's Hospital, 2010 to 2012. RESULTS: Fifty-seven paediatric patients diagnosed with CD and 16 nonceliac controls were included in the study. Fifty-three celiac patients (93.0%) had histopathology consistent with CD (modified Marsh score of 3A, 3B or 3C) in the duodenal bulb. The modified Marsh classification differed significantly between duodenum and duodenal bulb in nine celiac patients (15.8%). Of these, five (8.8%) had Marsh 3 in the bulb and Marsh 0 in the distal duodenum. Among controls, no patients had villous atrophy in either the distal duodenum or duodenal bulb, and all patients had a modified Marsh score of 0 at both sites. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study reinforce that duodenal bulb samples are critically important for diagnosing CD in paediatric patients. We suggest that duodenal bulb samples be submitted in separate containers from distal duodenal samples to facilitate accurate interpretation. In contrast to prior reports, we found villous blunting and intraepithelial lymphocytosis are actually uncommon findings in paediatric patients with nonceliac gastrointestinal disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".