Living with coeliac disease and a gluten‐free diet: a <scp>C</scp>anadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet is the only treatment for coeliac disease. The gluten-free diet is complex, costly and impacts on all activities involving food, making it difficult to maintain for a lifetime. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the difficulties experienced, the strategies used and the emotional impact of following a gluten-free diet among Canadians with coeliac disease. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all members (n = 10 693) of both the Canadian Celiac Association and the Fondation québécoise de la maladie cœliaque in 2008. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 72%. Results are presented for the 5912 respondents (≥18 years) reporting biopsy-confirmed coeliac disease and/or dermatitis herpetiformis. Two-thirds never intentionally consumed gluten. Women reported significantly greater emotional responses to a gluten-free diet but, with time, were more accepting of it than men. Difficulties and negative emotions were experienced less frequently by those on the diet for >5 years, although food labelling and eating away from home remained very problematic. Frustration and isolation because of the diet were the most common negative emotions experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The present study quantifies the difficulties experienced, the strategies used and the emotional impact of following a gluten-free diet. It highlights the need to improve the training and education of dietitians, other health providers and the food service industry workers about coeliac disease and a gluten-free diet, with the aim of better helping individuals improve their adherence to a gluten-free diet and their quality of life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".