Symptomatic suspected gluten exposure is common among patients with coeliac disease on a gluten‐free diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A gluten-free diet is the only recommended treatment for coeliac disease. AIM: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of reactions to gluten among persons with coeliac disease on a gluten-free diet. METHODS: Adults with biopsy proven, newly diagnosed coeliac disease were prospectively enrolled. A survey related to diet adherence and reactions to gluten was completed at study entry and 6 months. The Coeliac Symptom Index, Coeliac Diet Assessment Tool (CDAT) and Gluten-Free Eating Assessment Tool (GF-EAT) were used to measure coeliac disease symptoms and gluten-free diet adherence. RESULTS: Of the 105 participants, 91% reported gluten exposure <1 per month and median CDAT score was 9 (IQR 8-11), consistent with adequate adherence. A suspected symptomatic reaction to gluten was reported by 66%. Gluten consumption was unsuspected until a reaction occurred (63%) or resulted from problems ordering in a restaurant (29%). The amount of gluten consumed ranged from cross-contact (30%) to a major ingredient (10%). Median time to symptom onset was 1 h (range 10 min to 48 h), and median symptom duration was 24 h (range 1 h to 8 days). Common symptoms included abdominal pain (80%), diarrhoea (52%), fatigue (33%), headache (30%) and irritability (29%). CONCLUSIONS: Reactions to suspected gluten exposure are common among patients with coeliac disease on a gluten-free diet. Eating at restaurants and other peoples' homes remain a risk for unintentional gluten exposure. When following individuals with coeliac disease, clinicians should include questions regarding reactions to gluten as part of their assessment of gluten-free diet adherence.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".