Pls Post Your Enterolab Numbers And Your "actual" Results

[Gardening]

Maybe this been done before, but I would love to see people's Enterolab numbers (no need to cut and paste the whole thing - we all know they tell you that you're gluten sensitive and should have all your family and friends tested ) and then their blood test/biopsy/gluten-free diet results.

For example, did you get an 11 on the IGA anti-gliadin, and then recover your health after you went gluten-free?

Or did you get a 200 on the IGA anti-gliadin, a 56 TTG, and a 400 on the fecal fat, and yet have a negative blood test and biopsy?

I know this is not scientific, but I'm just curious to see how the magnitude of the Enterolab numbers play out at the GI's office.

[Gardening]

I don't have full results yet, but so far,

Me, Enterolab IGA anti-gliadin: 14 I have fibromyalgia and two negative celiac panels

DD1 E-lab IGA anti-gliadin: 22 Celiac panel shows IGA deficient

DD2 E-lab IGA anti-gliadin: 118 TTG of 26 currently eating her daily bread, preparing for a GI visit next week

I'm wondering how seriously I should take my E-lab low positive and how seriously I should take my youngest's E-lab strong positive results. I hate to put her through testing/surgery unnecessarily.

[Skylark]

The information you're looking for is in the "slide lecture" at Open Original Shared Link It only works right in Internet Explorer. E-lab is not diagnostic for celiac, with 29% of his normal volunteers showing anti-gliadin IgA. This is consistent with other publications and is the main reason I keep cautioning people about Enterolab. He did get antibodies in 100% of celiacs, which shows better sensitivity than the blood tests.

It looks like Fine has collected some data showing that a lot of people with the antibodies have "improved health" off gluten. His slides look to be set up for a talk and don't contain enough detail to say what the measures are, or the statistical significance. (He would be providing that information in the talk and made a common choice to keep his slides simple and uncluttered.)

[Gardening]

Thank you - I have seen those. As far as I can tell in reading the "health improvements" slides, people fared better on gluten-free diets, regardless of gliadin antibody status. Not a ringing endorsement of any test.

I was hoping for a sense of whether maybe his cutoff is too low, over-emphasizing sensitivity at the expense of specificity, and if this is true, what would be a better cutoff. Like, if a 12 is dubiously positive, is a 20 meaningful? or a 50? Or any greater magnitude? Is there any number where it really should be taken seriously and not with a grain (or three) of salt?

[Skylark]

Thank you - I have seen those. As far as I can tell in reading the "health improvements" slides, people fared better on gluten-free diets, regardless of gliadin antibody status. Not a ringing endorsement of any test.

I was hoping for a sense of whether maybe his cutoff is too low, over-emphasizing sensitivity at the expense of specificity, and if this is true, what would be a better cutoff. Like, if a 12 is dubiously positive, is a 20 meaningful? or a 50? Or any greater magnitude? Is there any number where it really should be taken seriously and not with a grain (or three) of salt?

I was not impressed by the "Overall Health" or "Improved Health" slides either. I'm not sure they would be statistically significant. It looks as if gluten-free is generally helpful for GI issues. Some publications on celiac have noted this, and suggested it might be due to changes in microflora.

Good questions, and definitely not answered by the material at Enterolab. Fine has stated that he has over-emphasized sensitivity at the expense of specificity in his essay. I wonder if you could get a better answer if you call them? Collecting data here is an interesting idea. I hope there are enough "normal" family members to give you a better idea. Good luck!