Long-Term Management of Patients with Celiac Disease: Current Practices of Gastroenterologists in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up of patients with celiac disease is important for monitoring their clinical status, dietary compliance and complications. AIM: To examine the current practices of Canadian gastroenterologists providing long-term care to patients with celiac disease. METHODS: All gastroenterologists in Canada (n=585) were surveyed regarding their practice demographics, familiarity with celiac disease practice guidelines, and follow-up clinical examination and investigations. RESULTS: Of the 585 surveys mailed to gastroenterologists, 567 were expected to be returned. A total of 242 completed surveys (43%) were received. Of these, 237 (184 adult, 51 pediatric and two mixed) had an active practice that included patients with celiac disease. Long-term follow-up care was provided routinely by 76% of respondents. Follow-up consisted of annual clinic visits (67%), dietary review (77%), reinforcement of the need for adherence to a gluten-free diet (90%) and recommending membership in an advocacy group (65%). Physical examination was performed by 78%; most ordered laboratory tests including serology (65%).Adult gastroenterologists performed routine follow-up intestinal biopsy more often than their pediatric counterparts (46% versus 10%), but performed serology less frequently (48% versus 86%). Pediatric patients were more likely to be followed by a multidisciplinary team. All pediatric gastroenterologists were familiar with at least one celiac disease practice guideline, whereas 15% of adult gastroenterologists were not familiar with any practice guideline. The majority of gastroenterologists who did not routinely provide follow-up expected care to be provided by the patient's primary physician (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Most gastroenterologists in Canada who responded to the survey provided long-term follow-up care to patients with celiac disease. The diverse practices reported underscore the need to develop consensus-based guidelines for long-term care of these patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".