MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014904578 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa006

Knowledge and opinions of asymptomatic adolescents and their caregivers on celiac disease screening

2020· article· en· W3014904578 on OpenAlexaff
Jasmine Blais-Carrière, Amélie Têtu, Brigitte Moreau

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptomaticDiseaseMedicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is an immune enteropathy caused by sensitivity to gluten affecting one per cent of the general population. Most people with CD are asymptomatic and some may be affected from childhood. Despite the latest recommendations of paediatric gastroenterology societies, targeted screening is still uncommon in clinical paediatric settings. A poor understanding of the asymptomatic population's opinions creates obstacles for broader implementation of CD screening. This study aims to fill this gap by reporting on the knowledge and opinions of adolescents and caregivers of children on CD screening. METHODS: Adolescents with absence of classical symptoms of CD and caregivers of presumably asymptomatic children were asked about their knowledge and opinions of CD through a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: There were 227 respondents including 76 adolescents and 151 caregivers. A minority of respondents (8% of caregivers and 23% of adolescents) were identified as having a CD-associated condition (such as hypothyroidism, type 1 diabetes, Down syndrome, etc.). A majority of caregivers (84%) and half of adolescents (49%) already knew about CD. Half of the respondents (46%) were in favour of screening asymptomatic paediatric populations and this agreement increased to 81.7% when they were confronted with hypothetical risks of 10%. CONCLUSION: This study reveals an increased willingness to screen when participants were faced with increasing hypothetical risks. This suggests that screening recommendations targeting high-risk populations, such as those of paediatric and non-paediatric gastroenterology societies, may be more widely accepted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207