Prevalence of Celiac Disease in Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) frequently coexists with other autoimmune diseases, including celiac disease (CeD). Although the prevalence of CeD is high among cohorts with PBC, few studies have directly compared this prevalence to those among individuals with other liver diseases (OLD). Aim To compare the prevalence of CeD between a cohort with PBC and a cohort with OLD. Methods Retrospective study from January 2013 to December 2016. All consecutive patients with an anti-transglutaminase (tTG) assay requested by a hepatologist and a diagnosis of chronic liver disease were included. CeD diagnosis was confirmed by duodenal biopsies. Results We included 399 consecutive patients (53.1 years SD 14.0, 54.1% women), notably 51 individuals with PBC and 348 individuals with OLD. PBC group included significantly more women (90.2% versus 48.9% P < 0.0001). The prevalence of CeD was higher in the group with PBC compared to the group with OLD (11.8 versus 2.9%, P < 0.003). In the OLD group, the prevalence of CeD was comparable regardless of the etiologic subgroup (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 2.7% versus alcoholic liver disease 4.3%, versus viral 1.5% versus other autoimmune liver diseases 3.3%, NS). The presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at the time of the tTG assay was comparable between PBC and OLD groups (31.4 versus 29.6%, NS). Conclusion There is a higher prevalence of CeD in the PBC group compared to other liver diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".