MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579224340 · doi:10.1097/mib.0000000000001009

The Importance and Challenges of Dietary Intervention Trials for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2017· review· en· W2579224340 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Lewis, Lindsey Albenberg, Dale Lee, Mario Kratz, Klaus Gottlieb, Walter Reinisch

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInflammatory bowel diseaseMedicineIntervention (counseling)DiseaseDietary therapyDietary managementClinical trialPsychological interventionDietary supplementInternal medicineFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel disease is believed to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental stimuli such as our diet. Diets high in meat and fats and low in fruits and vegetables have been associated with new-onset inflammatory bowel disease. This has triggered interest in using dietary modification as a treatment. The 3 principle models of dietary intervention are supplementation with selected dietary components, exclusion of selected dietary components, or use of dietary formulas in place of a normal diet. Despite the high level of interest in dietary interventions as a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease, few well-designed clinical trials have been conducted to firmly establish the optimal diet to induce or maintain remission. This may be in part related to the challenges of conducting dietary intervention trials. This review examines these challenges and potential approaches to be used in dietary intervention trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207