A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Association of Celiac Disease and Thyroid Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is probable that people who have celiac disease (CD) are more likely to have thyroid disorders. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the link between thyroid disorders and CD. Articles were selected from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane, ProQuest, and Wiley from February 2022 and earlier. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the outcomes, using odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The meta-analysis comprised 31 articles with 3310256 participants including 101253 individuals with thyroid disorders. Overall, the frequency of thyroid disease was notably higher in patients with CD compared to the control groups (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 2.51 – 3.72, P<0.001). The findings of our meta-analysis support the notion that patients with CD are more likely to have autoimmune thyroid disease (ATD) and other thyroid disorders than the control group, thus indicating that regular screening for thyroid disease is necessary for CD patients. Further cohort research is required to investigate the relationship between thyroid disorders 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".