Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Both science and patients associate diet with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. There is no doubt that links between IBD and diet are numerous, based on both epidemiological studies and experimental studies. However, scientific evidence to support dietary advice is currently lacking, and dietary counselling for IBD patients is often limited in clinical practice to the improvement of nutrient intake. This review aimed to focus on both patient's beliefs about and molecular mechanisms for crosstalk between nutrients and inflammation. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies on diet and/or nutrients and their role in IBD. Pubmed [from inception to January 20, 2016] was searched using the terms: 'Crohn', 'colitis',' intestinal epithelial cells', and a list of terms relating to diet or numerous specific nutrients. Terms associated with nutrients were individually tested in the context of IBD. Reference lists from studies selected were manually searched to identify further relevant reports. Manuscripts about diet in the context of IBD from basic science, epidemiological studies, or clinical trials were selected and reviewed. Only articles published in English were included. RESULTS: Epidemiological studies highlight the key role of diet in IBD development, and many IBD patients report diet as a triggering factor in relapse of disease. In addition, we present research on the impact of nutrients on innate immunity. CONCLUSION: Diet may offer an alternative approach to restoring deficient innate immunity in IBD, and this may be the scientific rationale for providing dietary counselling for IBD patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.029 |
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".