Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of celiac disease is a strict gluten-free diet for life. This diet is assumed to be more expensive, although no studies confirm this assumption. In the current study, the prices of gluten-free foods and regular (gluten-containing) foods were compared to determine if and to what extent gluten-free products are more expensive. METHODS: Prices were compared for all food products labelled "gluten-free" and comparable gluten-containing food items in the same group available at two large-chain general grocery stores. The unit cost of each food, calculated as the price in dollars per 100 grams of each product, was calculated for purposes of comparison. RESULTS: All 56 gluten-free products were more expensive than regular products. The mean (+/- standard deviation) unit price for gluten-free products was $1.71 (+/- 0.93) compared with $0.61 (+/- 0.38) for regular products (p<0.0001). On average, gluten-free products were 242% more expensive than regular products (+/- 212; range, 5% to 1,000%). CONCLUSIONS: All the commercially available products labelled gluten-free were significantly more expensive than comparable products. This information will be useful to dietitians who counsel individuals and families with celiac disease, and to celiac advocacy groups for lobbying the government about financial compensation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".