MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412986039 · doi:10.1136/bmjgast-2025-001900

Nationwide survey of coeliac disease serology testing in the UK

2025· article· en· W4412986039 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Albin Alex, Alex S Hong, Mylène Dimmock, Md. Farid Uz Zaman, Mohamed Adam, Graeme Wild, Hugo A. Penny, David S. Sanders, Penny Whiting, Martha Elwenspoek, Mohamed G. Shiha

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenCoeliac UKUniversity of BristolUniversity of OxfordHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeUniversity College LondonUniversity of SouthamptonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsSerologyMedicineCoeliac diseaseTissue transglutaminaseImmunoglobulin ATurnaround timeBiopsyDiseaseImmunologyAntibodyInternal medicineImmunoglobulin GBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence supports diagnosing coeliac disease without biopsy in patients with significantly elevated tissue transglutaminase (IgA-tTG) antibodies. However, the implementation of this no-biopsy approach relies on accurate and consistent serological testing across laboratories. In this nationwide survey, we aimed to evaluate the availability and variability of coeliac disease testing across the UK. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey of biomedical scientists and laboratory managers from National Health Service trusts and health boards across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Data collected included assay types, reporting methods, upper limit of normal (ULN) thresholds, turnaround times, total IgA testing, and anti-endomysial antibodies (EMAs) availability. RESULTS: A total of 356 sites were approached, with a 96% response rate (n=342). Of responding sites, 177 performed coeliac serology tests in-house, while 165 transferred samples externally. Among sites performing tests, 12 different IgA-tTG assays were identified, with considerable variability in ULN thresholds ranging from 3 to 30 IU/mL, even within laboratories using the same assays. The median turnaround time for IgA-tTG results was 7 days (range 1-21 days). Only 43% of laboratories routinely measured total IgA when IgA-tTG was requested. EMA testing was available in 83% of laboratories. CONCLUSION: Significant variability exists in coeliac serology testing across UK laboratories which poses a challenge for the implementation of the no-biopsy approach in clinical practice. Efforts to standardise serological testing are urgently needed. Until such standardisation is achieved, local assay validation remains critical.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207