DOP006 Research gaps in diet and nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease. A topical review by ECCO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The role of diet in IBD has recently attracted substantial interest by the scientific community and dietary influences are likely to explain the rapid rise in disease epidemiology. Methods: The D-ECCO working group along with other ECCO experts reviewed the evidence looking at the role of diet and nutritional therapy in the onset, perpetuation and management of IBD. Results: Evidence pertinent to the role of diet in IBD is summarized collectively under three main thematic domains: i) the role of diet in IBD aetiology; ii) the role of diet as induction and maintenance therapy in IBD; and assessment of nutritional status and supportive nutritional support in IBD. Future research should: Address causation in the interaction between diet, microbiome and IBD Investigate the ability to modify the gut microbiota by dietary interventions, and its effect on disease activity Study the role of industrialized food, including, but not limited to nutrients, additives and processing in IBD Explore mechanisms of action of Exclusive Enteral Nutrition (EEN) Evaluating optimal food reintroduction following EEN Assess the optimal regimen of Partial Enteral Nutrition (PEN) for maintenance of CD and type of accompanying diet Evaluate the efficacy of elimination diets for induction and maintenance of remission in IBD Study evolution of malnutrition following diagnosis and whether this is predictive of disease outcomes Develop new biomarkers that can predict, diagnose, monitor intestinal failure or insufficiency in IBD Study mechanisms of food-related functional symptoms in IBD Study the efficacy and safety of dietary therapies for the management of functional symptoms in patients with inactive IBD Conclusions: This summary of research gaps is anticipated to be agenda setting for future research in the area of diet and nutrition in IBD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".