Incidence of Celiac Disease Is Increasing Over Time: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis that defines the worldwide incidence of celiac disease (CD) and examines temporal trends. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for population-based studies reporting the incidence of CD in the overall population, children, or adults. No limits were placed on year or language of publication. Studies solely examining at-risk populations (e.g., patients with type 1 diabetes) were excluded. Random-effects models were performed to meta-analyze sex- and age-specific incidence in the 21st century. Temporal trend analyses assessed the average annual percent change in CD incidence over time. RESULTS: Of 11,189 citations, 86 eligible studies were identified for inclusion, of which 50 were deemed suitable for analyses. In the 21st century, the pooled female incidence of CD was 17.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.7, 21.1) (I = 99.5%) per 100,000 person-years, compared with 7.8 (95% CI: 6.3, 9.2) (I = 98.6%) in males. Child-specific incidence was 21.3 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 15.9, 26.7) (I = 99.7%) compared with 12.9 (95% CI: 7.6, 18.2) (I = 99.9%) in adults. Pooling average annual percent changes showed the incidence of CD to be increasing by 7.5% (95% CI: 5.8, 9.3) (I = 79.6%) per year over the past several decades. DISCUSSION: Incidence of CD is highest in females and children. Overall, the incidence has been significantly rising in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century throughout the Western world. Population-based studies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are needed to provide a comprehensive picture of the global incidence of CD.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".