Patterns of dietary behaviours identified by latent class analysis are associated with chronic uninvestigated dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To our knowledge, no study has assessed the relationships between patterns of dietary behaviours, identified by latent class analysis (LCA), and chronic uninvestigated dyspepsia (CUD). The present study was conducted to determine the association between the patterns of dietary behaviours, identified by LCA, and CUD in a large sample of adults. In a cross-sectional study conducted on 4763 Iranian adults, we assessed the patterns of dietary behaviours in four domains, including 'meal patterns', 'eating rate', 'intra-meal fluid intake' and 'meal-to-sleep interval', as identified by LCA, using a pre-tested comprehensive questionnaire. Patients with CUD were identified using the Rome III diagnostic criteria. CUD was prevalent in 15·2 % (95 % CI 14·4, 16·2 %; n 723) of patients. Early satiation occurred in 6·3 % (n 302) of patients, bothersome postprandial fullness in 8·0 % (n 384) of patients and epigastric pain in 7·8 % (n 371) of patients. We defined two distinct classes of meal patterns: 'regular' and 'irregular'. For eating rates, three classes were defined: 'moderate', 'moderate-to-slow' and 'moderate-to-fast'. Participants were identified as ingesting fluid with meals in two major classes: 'moderate intra-meal drinking' and 'high intra-meal drinking'. In terms of the interval between meals and sleeping, two distinct classes were identified: 'short meal-to-sleep interval' and 'long meal-to-sleep interval'. After controlling for potential confounders, the 'irregular meal pattern' was significantly associated with a greater odds of CUD (OR 1·42, 95 % CI 1·12, 1·78) compared with a 'regular meal pattern'. Individuals with a 'moderate-to-fast eating rate' were more likely to have CUD compared with those who had a 'moderate eating rate' (OR 1·42, 95 % CI 1·15, 1·75). Patterns of the 'meal-to-sleep interval' and 'intra-meal fluid intake' were not significantly associated with CUD. In conclusion, the 'irregular meal pattern' and the 'moderate-to-fast eating rate' were significantly associated with a greater odds of CUD. Further prospective investigations are warranted to confirm this association.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".