Gluten Introduction, Breastfeeding, and Celiac Disease: Back to the Drawing Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary by the leadership of the North American Society for the Study of Celiac Disease (NASSCD) concerns recent research findings regarding infant feeding practices. Celiac disease has increased markedly in recent decades, and seroprevalence studies indicate that this is a true rise, rather than one due to increased awareness and testing. Prior studies have suggested that infant feeding practices and timing of initial gluten exposure are central to the development of celiac disease. Two recent multicenter randomized trials tested strategies of early or delayed gluten introduction in infants, and neither strategy appeared to influence celiac disease risk. These studies also found that breastfeeding did not protect against the development of celiac disease. While disappointing, these results should spur the study of wider environmental risk factors beyond infant feeding, such as intrauterine and perinatal exposures as well as environmental influences later in life, including drug exposure, microbial infections, and the microbiome. Given that celiac disease can develop at any age, it is imperative to study these proposed triggers so as to elucidate the loss of tolerance to gluten and to develop future intervention strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".