Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 465

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The first large population based twin study of coeliac disease

Open access
Greco, L, Romino, R, Coto, I, Di Cosmo, N, Percopo, S, Maglio, M, Paparo, F, Gasperi, V, Limongelli, M G, Cotichini, R, D'Agate, C, Tinto, N, Sacchetti, L, Tosi, R, Stazi, M A·2002·Gut

Abstract

Background and aims: The genetic load in coeliac disease has hitherto been inferred from case series or anecdotally referred twin pairs. We have evaluated the genetic component in coeliac disease by estimating the concordance rate for the disease among twin pairs in a large population based study. Methods: The Italian Twin Registry was matched with the membership lists of a patient support group. Forty seven twin pairs were recruited and screened for antiendomysial (EMA) and antihuman-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibodies; zygosity was verified by DNA fingerprinting and twins were typed for HLA class II DRB1 and DQB1 molecules. Results: Concordance rates for coeliac disease differ significantly between monozygotic (MZ) (0.86 probandwise and 0.75 pairwise) and dizygotic (DZ) (0.20 probandwise and 0.11 pairwise) twins. This is the highest concordance so far reported for a multifactorial disease. A logistic regression model, adjusted for age, sex, number of shared HLA haplotypes, and zygosity, showed that genotypes DQA1*0501/DQB1*0201 and DQA1*0301/DQB1*0302 (encoding for heterodimers DQ2 and DQ8, respectively) conferred to the non-index twin a risk of contracting the disease of 3.3 and 1.4, respectively. The risk of being concordant for coeliac disease estimated for the non-index twin of MZ pairs was 17 (95% confidence interval 2.1–134), independent of the DQ at risk genotype. Conclusion: This study provides substantial evidence for a very strong genetic component in coeliac disease, which is only partially due to the HLA region.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.50.5.624

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 465

Metadata

Authors
Greco, L., Romino, R., Coto, I., Di Cosmo, N., Percopo, S., Maglio, M., Paparo, F., Gasperi, V, Limongelli, M. G., Cotichini, R., D'Agate, C., Tinto, N., Sacchetti, L., Tosi, R., & Stazi, M. A.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-05
Volume
50
Issue
5
Pages
624-628
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2148511724
Cited by
465
References
23
FWCI
18.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The first large population based twin study of coeliac disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.50.5.624
The paper
Greco, L., Romino, R., Coto, I., Di Cosmo, N., Percopo, S., Maglio, M., Paparo, F., Gasperi, V, Limongelli, M. G., Cotichini, R., D'Agate, C., Tinto, N., Sacchetti, L., Tosi, R., & Stazi, M. A. (2002). The first large population based twin study of coeliac disease. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.50.5.624

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.