S522 Food Insecurity and Digestive Diseases: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Food insecurity (FI), the lack of consistent access to enough food for an active and healthy life, is widely prevalent globally and in the United States, and the incidence of FI has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies have demonstrated the negative impact FI has on health outcomes, but few studies have examined the relationship between FI and gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to explore the relationship between FI and GI disorders worldwide. Methods: The Embase (via Elsevier), Web of Science (via Clarivate), and PubMed/MEDLINE electronic databases were searched from inception through February 2021 for studies examining a relationship between FI and non-hepatic GI diseases. Additional studies were identified through bibliography review (Figure 1). Non-English studies and those without a comparison group were excluded. Studies not using a validated FI measure and those published before 1995, when the Household Food Security Survey Module was developed, also were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Results: The search strategy yielded 1931 studies and 12 (0.6%), of which 8 were from the US, were included in the systematic review (Table). Overall, the studies showed an association between FI and GI diseases. There were no clinical trials or studies that assessed a causative role of FI on GI diseases, though one longitudinal study showed an association between the presence of FI and heartburn (OR 4.56; 95% CI 1.45-14.3) among pregnant women. Six studies (3 cross-sectional, 2 cohort, and 1 case-control) demonstrated a relationship between FI and GI cancers, though causation could not be determined. The presence of FI was associated with an increase in the risk of diarrheal illnesses in children and FI was associated with an increased risk (OR 1.69; 95% 1.15, 2.49) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as increased medication non-adherence compared to those without IBD. Conclusion: Despite the increasing incidence of FI and recognition of its impact on disease outcomes, we identified few studies that have examined the relationship between FI and GI diseases. Our systematic review reveals that while significant associations between FI and GI diseases exist, the apparent literature gap provides an opportunity for future work to investigate this problem further.Figure 1.: Reasons reported by those with bloating in the past seven days for having never sought healthcare for their symptoms (n=7,215). OTC, over-the-counter. Note: Sum percentage exceeds 100%, as survey respondents can choose more than one reason.Table 1.: Title: Table. Reliability Statistics for Categorical Questions Evaluating Bloating and Distension Symptoms Footnotes: ***, near perfect agreement (k ≥ 0.81); **, substantial agreement (0.61 ≤ k < 0.81); *, moderate agreement (0.41 ≤ k < 0.61); k, Cohen's kappa coefficient; CI, confidence interval; Sx, symptom; d, days; hrs, hoursTable 1Table 1
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».