MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403509268 · doi:10.1016/j.humimm.2024.111158

The frequency of HLA-DQ7 in patients at risk of coeliac disease: A haplotype to be reckoned with for screening?

2024· article· en· W4403509268 on OpenAlexaff
Maxine D. Rouvroye, Alison Roos, F Bergkamp, I A Haagen, Pieter van der Pol, E.A. Neefjes-Borst, Hetty J. Bontkes

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Immunology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypeHuman leukocyte antigenCoeliac diseaseMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineImmunologyGeneticsBiologyAlleleAntigenGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HLA-DQ2 and -DQ8 carriers are genetically predisposed to develop coeliac disease (CD). Testing negative for HLA-DQ2/DQ8 has a high negative predictive value. Full HLA-DQ genotyping as well as tests only typing for HLA-DQ2/DQ8 are therefore used for screening at-risk populations. However, HLA-DQ7 positive and HLA-DQ2/DQ8 negative CD patients have been described in various populations. In this study we examine the relevance for HLA-DQ7 typing in a large at-risk CD population. The HLA-DQ status of all paediatric and adult patients at-risk of CD that were typed in a tertiary medical centre laboratory between 2012 and 2016 (n = 3983) was obtained. HLA-DQ7 (HLA-DQB1*03:01) positive and HLA-DQ2/DQ8 negative patients were selected. We gathered information on serology, histology and dietary status, and CD diagnosis. In total, 489/3983 patients were HLA-DQ7-positive and HLA-DQ2/DQ8 negative, and after exclusion (missing data on diet or serology/histology), 325 were included. Only one adult patient was diagnosed with CD, based on a duodenal biopsy and a clinical response to a gluten-free diet. Homozygosity was observed in 14.8 %. Based on the current cohort additional typing of HLA-DQ7 does not seem relevant for screening at-risk populations for CD in the Netherlands. It should be considered in patients with a high suspicion of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ImmunologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207