A randomized trial of the effects of the no-carrageenan diet on ulcerative colitis disease activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carrageenan is a very common food additive in Western diets, but predictably causes inflammation in thousands of cell-based and animal experiments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of carrageenan exposure on the interval to relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis in remission. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, clinical trial was conducted to assess if patients with ulcerative colitis in remission would have a longer interval to relapse if they followed a diet with no carrageenan. All participants were instructed in the no-carrageenan diet and were randomized to either placebo capsules or carrageenan-containing capsules. The carrageenan in the capsules was less than the average daily carrageenan intake from the diet. Relapse was defined as an increase of two or more points on the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) and intensification of treatment for ulcerative colitis. Participants were followed by telephone calls every two weeks until relapse or one year of participation. The occurrence of relapse and inflammatory biomarkers were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Twelve patients completed study questionnaires. Three patients who received carrageenan-containing capsules relapsed, and none of the patients who received placebo-containing capsules relapsed ( p = 0.046, log-rank test). Laboratory tests showed increases in Interleukin-6 ( p = 0.02, paired t-test, two-tailed) and fecal calprotectin ( p = 0.06; paired t-test, two-tailed) between the beginning and the end of study participation in the carrageenan-exposed group, but not in the placebo-group. CONCLUSION: Carrageenan intake contributed to earlier relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis in remission. Restriction of dietary carrageenan may benefit patients with ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".