Clinical significance of detecting anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody in Crohn＇s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the clinical significance of detecting serum anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody （ASCA）IgG and IgA in the diagnosis of Crohn′s disease（CD）.Methods A total of 51 patients with CD were enrolled as CD group and 22 healthy volunteers as healthy control group.The serum samples of both groups were collected.ASCA-IgG and ASCA-IgA were determined with enzyme linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA）.According to Montreal standard,patients with CD were divided into subgroup according to the age of onset （A）,lesion （L）,clinical behavior （B）.The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of both groups were calculated.Chi-square test was performed for count data analysis.Results The sensitivities of ASCA-IgG and ASCA-IgA in CD group were 45 .1 % and 35 .3%,respectively,while in the healthy control group which were 0 and 9.1 %,respectively.There were significant differences between two groups （χ2 =14.49 and 5 .31 ,both P 〈0.05 ）.The specificities and positive predictive values of ASCA-IgG in CD group were both 100.0%,and those of ASCA-IgA were 91 .0% and 90.0%.The sensitivities of ASCA-IgG in A1 ,A2 and A3 groups were 75 .0%,36.4% and 57.1 %,respectively,and those of ASCA-IgA,were 25 .0%,30.3% and 50.0%,respectively.The sensitivities of ASCA-IgG in L1 ,L2 and L3 groups were 38.5 %,37.5 % and 57.1 %,respectively,and those of ASCA-IgA were 30.8%,31 .3% and 42.9%,respectively.The sensitivities of ASCA-IgG in B1 , B2 and B3 groups were 45 .2%,50.0% and 25 .0%,respectively,and those of ASCA-IgA were 29.0%, 50.0% and 25 .0%,respectively.There was no significant difference in the sensitivities of ASCA-IgG and IgA between the subtgroups of CD group （all P 〉0.05 ）.The sensitivities of ASCA-IgG in CD patients with complications and without complications were 56.3% and 26.3%,respectively,and there was significant difference （χ2 =4.31 ,P 〈0.05）.Conclusions Serum ASCA-IgG is not suitable for population screening,however it has certain value for the differential diagnosis of CD.The clinical value of detecting ASCA-IgG is higher than that of detecting ASCA-IgA. Key words: Crohn disease; Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies; Markers, serum
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".