Dietary Intake and Micronutrient Supplementation in Youth with Celiac Disease with and without Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study purpose was to describe dietary intake and the factors influencing micronutrient supplements (MS) use in Celiac Disease (CD) ± Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). Three-day food records collected from parents of youth (3–18 years) with CD (n = 14) ± T1D (n = 10) were assessed for macro and micronutrient intake, diet quality (DQ), glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL), and food group intake. Focus group methodology and thematic concept analysis were conducted to determine factors influencing adolescent MS use. Mean ± SD age was 11 ± 4.4 (CD) and 13 ± 3.7 (CD + T1D) (P = 0.32). Body mass index was within healthy reference ranges (17.9 ± 2.5 [CD]; 19.3 ± 3.8 [CD + T1D] kg/m2; P = 0.61). The majority of youth with CD ± T1D (>90%) had high intakes of sugar and saturated fat, had high GI and GL, and met food serving recommendations and DQs that were indicative of “needs improvement.” With the exception of vitamin D, vitamin E, folate, calcium, and potassium, youth in both groups met the estimated average requirements (EAR) for most micronutrients. MS use corrected suboptimal vitamin D intake; however, vitamin E, folate, calcium, and potassium intake remained below the EAR. Variables influencing adolescent MS use included daily routine, health professional influence, disease management (CD + T1D), and lack of knowledge about the need for MS. Strategies to elicit adolescent MS use varied between parent and adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".