MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000561750 · doi:10.1159/000505290

The Bidirectional Association between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3000561750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiao Shi, Qi Chen, Fen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisInflammatory bowel diseaseMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane LibraryUlcerative colitisGastroenterologyRelative riskDiseaseImmunologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous investigations have suggested a significant association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and atopic dermatitis (AD). Yet, outcomes published remain inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between IBD and AD by a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of studies published from March 1, 1968, to July 26, 2019, was performed in electronic databases as follows: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Methodological quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data analysis was conducted using R version 3.6.1 (meta package version 4.9-7). RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were eligible for exploring the association between IBD and AD. Statistically significant differences were found on the risk of AD comorbidity among patients with IBD (risk ratio [RR] 1.83, 95% CI 1.39-2.40), Crohn's disease (CD; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.61-2.64), and ulcerative colitis (UC; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.23-2.24). Compared with non-AD subjects, patients with AD were 48% (p = 0.019), 44% (p = 0.002), and 38% (p = 0.000) more likely to exhibit IBD, CD as well as UC, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our evidence supported a significant bidirectional association between IBD and AD. Future prospective studies are warranted to explore underlying mechanisms linking them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207