Effects of Fiber-Fortified Foods on Children With Constipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this pilot study was to determine the acceptability of fiber fortification and its effect on gastrointestinal function, abdominal discomfort, and energy and fiber intakes in children with a history of constipation. Participants (n = 13; 2-10 years) were randomly assigned to 3-week fiber and placebo periods in a crossover design. Participants consumed snack foods with or without added pea hull fiber (1.4-3.4 g of fiber per serving), as well as inulin (4.5 g of fiber per day) or maltodextrin control added to beverages. Stool frequency, stool consistency, abdominal pain, and compliance were documented. Fiber fortification improved daily stool frequency (n = 10; 0.54 ± 0.18 vs 0.67 ± 0.26; P = .002) during weeks 2 and 3. No differences between treatments were found for estimated intestinal transit time or abdominal pain. Inulin was consumed more consistently than snacks. Mean energy intake was reduced with fiber versus placebo (n = 12; 1441 ± 285 vs 1307 ± 296 kcal/day; P < .05), and fiber intakes increased significantly (n = 12; 11.1 ± 2.6 vs 17.1 ± 2.5 g/day; P < .001). Fiber fortification was well accepted and significantly increased fiber intakes. Fiber fortification may lower energy intakes in constipated children, although the effect on bowel habits in this convenience sample remains unclear.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".