MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108998259 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.01.20241869

Systematic review of the association between rotavirus infection, or rotavirus vaccination and coeliac disease

2020· preprint· en· W3108998259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Inns, Kate M. Fleming, Miren Iturriza‐Gómara, Daniel Hungerford

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of LiverpoolUniversity of WarwickPublic Health EnglandDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
KeywordsRotavirusVaccinationMedicineCoeliac diseaseRotavirus vaccineRotavirus InfectionsDiseaseImmunologyImmunizationVirologyPediatricsImmune systemVirusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is some evidence that rotavirus infection leads to an increased risk of coeliac disease (CD), and some immunological and biological plausibility for the human immune system recognising rotavirus particles and gluten proteins in a similar way. It is therefore plausible that rotavirus vaccine could have a role in preventing CD. However, such evidence has not previously been summarised in a systematic way to present a coherent picture. We conducted this systematic literature review to address this gap in the evidence. The aim of this research was to determine the nature of any association between rotavirus infection, or rotavirus vaccination, and risk of CD. Methods We searched Scopus, MEDLINE, Europe PMC and medRxiv for studies published between 01 January 1980 and 31 July 2020, using terms related to CD and rotavirus. Publications were screened independently by two reviewers using exclusion criteria. We extracted data from included papers using a standardized data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes were descriptions of the settings and methods reported in included papers, and any estimates of effect. Results After exclusions, we reviewed five papers of which two used the exposure of rotavirus infection and three used the exposure of rotavirus vaccination. One paper found that rotavirus infection increased the risk of CD and that this was statistically significant. None of the three publications studying the association between rotavirus vaccination and CD were graded as high quality. All found a protective effect of RotaTeq ® rotavirus vaccination, but this was only statistically significant in two studies. Conclusions Few studies have been published on this research question. Those that have been published are not of sufficient quality and did not use comparable methods. Due to differences in study results there remains uncertainty regarding the relationship between rotavirus infection, vaccination and 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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.008
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207