Eosinophilic esophagitis and allergic susceptibility: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a type 2 helper T (Th2) cell immune-mediated gastrointestinal disease. Accumulating evidence has supported allergic etiology as an underlying mechanism for EoE, but the magnitude of the correlation between EoE and atopy remains ambiguous. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the rate of co-existing common atopic diseases between EoE and non-EoE patients. Methods We searched through electronic databases and reference lists of review articles for studies describing co-existing rates of atopic diseases in EoE and non-EoE patients. EoE was diagnosed based on clinical and pathological evaluations. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects models were used for analyses. Quantitative results were presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore and to identify heterogeneity across studies. Publication bias was examined by Egger's test and visualized by funnel plots. Results Altogether, 27 studies containing 1831 cases and 2982 controls were enrolled. 57.2% of EoE patients had co-existing atopic disease. Patients with EoE were more likely to comorbid with atopic diseases (OR = 3.56, 95% CI: 2.27 to 5.59, I 2 = 78%), including asthma (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.94 to 3.06, I 2 = 29%), allergic rhinitis (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 3.29 to 8.84, I 2 = 78%), atopic dermatitis (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.89 to 2.30, I 2 = 12%) and food allergy (OR = 4.93, 95% CI: 3.96 to 6.14, I 2 = 0%) than non-EoE controls. Heterogeneity sources were explored and identified via subgroup and sensitivity analyses, with the majority of subgroup estimates aligning with the primary findings. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusions Our findings suggest that EoE patients are more likely to comorbid atopic diseases, favoring the allergic diathesis of EoE. Clinicians should be alert for EoE in allergic patients having upper gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the causality between EoE and atopic diseases was not revealed and remains to be explored.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".