Association of Celiac Disease and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To determine the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients with celiac disease (CeD) (and vice versa ) compared with general-population comparators. METHODS: Using Swedish histopathology and healthcare register data, we identified 48,551 patients with CeD and 83,529 with IBD diagnosed in 1969-2016. Each patient was compared with age- and sex-matched general-population comparators (CeD: n = 240,136; IBD: n = 408,195). Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for IBD in patients with CeD and vice versa . Our main analyses were limited to events beyond the first year of follow-up to reduce potential surveillance bias. RESULTS: During follow-up, 784 (1.6%) patients with CeD were diagnosed with IBD compared with 1,015 (0.4%) matched comparators. In patients with CeD, the HR for IBD was 3.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.56-4.31), with largely similar HRs for Crohn's disease (4.36; 3.72-5.11) and ulcerative colitis (3.40; 3.00-3.85). During follow-up, 644 (0.8%) patients with IBD and 597 (0.1%) comparators were diagnosed with CeD. The HR for CeD in patients with IBD was 5.49 (95% CI 4.90-6.16), with the highest risk estimates seen in ulcerative colitis (HR = 6.99; 6.07-8.05), and the HR for Crohn's disease was 3.31 (2.69-4.06). In patients with CeD and IBD, the diagnostic interval was usually <1 year; however, HRs of 3-4 were seen even after 10 years of follow-up. During 20 years of follow-up, 2.5% of patients with CeD developed incident IBD, and 1.3% of patients with IBD developed CeD. DISCUSSION: The bidirectional association between CeD diagnosis and IBD warrants attention in the initial assessment and follow-up of these conditions. Their co-occurrence, independent of temporal sequence, suggests shared etiology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".