Foods with added fiber improve stool frequency in individuals with chronic kidney disease with no impact on appetite or overall quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fiber intake may be low in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to diet restriction and/or poor appetite associated with uremic symptoms, contributing to constipation and reduced quality of life. This report describes the effects of foods with added fiber on gastrointestinal function and symptoms, clinical markers, and quality of life in CKD patients. FINDINGS: Adults with CKD (n = 15; 9 F, 6 M; 66 ± 15 y) were provided with cereal, cookies and snack bars without added fiber for 2 weeks, followed by similar foods providing 23 g/d of added fiber for 4 weeks, to incorporate into their usual diets. Participants completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) questionnaire, the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) bi-weekly, the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) weekly, and daily stool frequency and compliance. Control and intervention serum cholesterol and glucose were assessed. Providing 23 g/d of added fiber increased stool frequency (1.3 ± 0.2 to 1.6 ± 0.2 stools/d; P = 0.02), decreased total cholesterol (175 ± 12 to 167 ± 11 mg/dL; P = 0.02) and improved TC:HDL ratio (4.0 ± 0.3 to 3.7 ± 0.2; P = 0.02). GSRS and SNAQ scores did not change, but SNAQ scores suggested poor appetite in 7 participants with or without added fiber. KDQOL Mental Health Composite decreased from 53 ± 2 to 48 ± 2 (P = 0.01) while Physical Health Composite increased from 31 ± 2 to 35 ± 3 (P = 0.02), with no change in overall QOL. The ESS score decreased from 10 ± 1 to 8 ± 1 (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Consuming foods with added fiber may be an effective means of increasing fiber intakes, improving stool frequency, and lipid profile in individuals with CKD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, # NCT01842087.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".