Quality of life in children with diabetes and celiac disease: minimal impact of the ‘double diagnosis’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of sensitive testing to detect celiac disease (CD), screening in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains controversial. Many diabetes clinics are apprehensive about the prospect of introducing a second illness requiring intensive lifestyle changes in patients and families already managing a chronic condition, especially in asymptomatic patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of managing CD + T1D on quality of life in families, with attention to the effect of adherence with a gluten-free diet (GFD) and metabolic control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional assessment using a validated self-reported quality of life measure: 28 children with biopsy-proven CD + T1D were compared with 40 subjects with T1D aged 8-18 yr. Parental and child reports were assessed as well as symptoms at the time of CD diagnosis and adherence with a GFD at the quality of life assessment. RESULTS: No significant differences in quality of life were observed between subjects with established CD + T1D and subjects with T1D alone. Parents of children with CD + T1D reported lower social functioning scores than parents of children with T1D (p = 0.03). In the CD + T1D group no differences in quality of life were observed with regard to age at CD diagnosis, CD duration, or on the basis of adherence with a GFD. CONCLUSIONS: The additional diagnosis of CD has minimal impact on quality of life in children with T1D; however, parents of CD + T1D children did express greater concern about their child's social functioning.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".