The association between microscopic colitis and celiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple studies suggested that celiac disease (CD) may be associated with microscopic colitis (MC); however, most were limited by a small sample size or the main scope of interest. We aimed to analyze previously published literature on this association to determine its extent and significance. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, PubMed Central, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases from inception through January 2022. The PRISMA guideline was followed for data extraction. Effect estimates were extracted and combined using random effect, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird and pooled odds ratio (OR), and event rates (ER) were calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Forest plots were generated and publication bias assessed via conventional techniques. Results: Twenty-six studies with a total of 22,802 patients with MC were included in this analysis. CD was significantly associated with MC (odds ratio [OR] 8.276, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.888-11.632; P<0.001). The ER for MC in CD patients was 6.2% (95%CI 4.1-9.2%; P<0.001), while the ER for CD in MC patients was 6.1% (95%CI 3.9-9.5%; P<0.001). CD was prevalent in both types of MC: 5.2% (95%CI 2.2-12.1%; P<0.001) in collagenous colitis and 6.3% (95%CI 3.4-11.5%; P<0.001) in lymphocytic colitis. We found no publication bias, according to funnel plots and Egger's regression asymmetry testing. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis confirms a statistically significant association between CD and MC, with a high prevalence of CD in both types of MC. Gastroenterologists should be wary of this association when evaluating patients with either disease, particularly patients with a suboptimal response to first-line therapy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".