A170 CANADIANS WITH CELIAC DISEASE MISINTERPRET PRODUCT LABEL INFORMATION WHICH MAY LEAD TO UNSAFE FOOD CHOICES DESPITE ALLERGEN LABELLING LAWS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with celiac disease (CD) often report challenges reading labels as well as inadvertent gluten exposures and the most common cause of non-responsive CD is gluten exposure. To assess whether patients with CD can proficiently assess product labelling to determine if a product is gluten-free. The Manitoba Celiac Disease Cohort includes newly diagnosed adults with elevated TTG and/or EMA antibodies and Marsh III histology. At each follow-up visit (6, 12 and 24 months), participants were presented with 25 grocery items purchased at a local supermarket (different items at each time point) and asked to determine whether each was gluten-free based upon labeling information. The Celiac Diet Assessment Tool (CDAT) and Gluten-Free Eating Assessment Tool (GF-EAT) were used to assess GFD adherence. There were 78 participants (62% female, mean age 40 years) who completed the 24 month study visit, of whom 70 also completed the 6 month assessment and 62 the 12 month assessment. Participants generally reported good gluten-free diet adherence (median CDAT score < 13 at each time point, which is associated with adequate adherence); however, at 24 months 73% reported rare gluten exposure less than once per month on the GF-EAT. Grocery Quiz scores were [median (IQR)]: 6 months, 22/25 correct (21–23); 12 months, 21 (20–22); 24 months, 18 (18–19). Participants were more likely to make errors with gluten-containing items and least likely to make errors with gluten-free products with explicit “gluten-free” labelling claims. There were no significant correlations between quiz scores and either TTG antibody levels or standardized gluten-free diet adherence assessment tools. Patients who are trying to follow a gluten-free diet may not be able to consistently choose appropriate gluten-free foods based upon product labeling information. The ability to correctly read food labels does not appear to improve with time. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether insufficient label reading skills are associated with persistent villous atrophy. CAG, CIHRNational Institutes of Health (United States)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".