ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
A model for predicting celiac disease among undiagnosed subjects established with data from the HUNT4 study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCeliac disease (CeD) is an immune mediated disorder with substantial underdiagnosis, particularly in adults with non-specific symptoms. Universal population screening remains under debate due to cost-effectiveness and potential quality-of-life implications. Clinical prediction tools aid clinicians in identifying individuals who might benefit from targeted screening.
methodsUsing data from 52,000 adults in the fourth population-based Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4) in Norway, we developed and internally validated a non-diagnostic prediction model for previously undiagnosed CeD. The model incorporated predictors spanning genetics, lifestyle, symptoms, comorbidity, and biomarkers. Elastic-net logistic regression with nested cross-validation was chosen due to the low disease prevalence and imbalanced case-control distribution. Model performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, area under precision-recall curve, and calibration plots. Clinical utility was evaluated at different risk thresholds.
resultsAmong 465 newly diagnosed cases and 51,515 controls, polygenic risk score emerged as the strongest predictor for CeD, alongside diabetic history, kidney function, chronic discomfort, and perceived health status. The model achieved high discrimination (84%) and good calibration (0.009). The model outperformed universal population screening by detecting more cases, especially when the predicted risk was less than 2%. Increasing sample prevalence for sensitivity analysis, revealed that the model was better in population scenarios compared to high-risk/high-prevalence scenarios.
conclusionThe multifactorial model demonstrated strong potential for guiding targeted screening for CeD, especially in low-prevalence, true population-based settings. While not a diagnostic tool, it may support clinical decision-making by identifying individuals at elevated risk. External validation and cost-effectiveness studies are needed before it can be implemented in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.