The Gluten Free Diet: Assessing Adherence in a Pediatric Celiac Disease Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A strict, lifelong, gluten-free diet (GFD) remains the sole treatment for celiac disease (CD). The assessment of adherence to the GFD in pediatric studies is often based on self-report and visual analogue scales which lack proven validity. We sought to compare parental-report of GFD adherence to expert registered dietitian (RD) assessments, the best available standard. Methods Parents of children with biopsy-proven CD scored their adherence to the GFD on a five-point Likert scale similar to that used in previous pediatric CD studies. Each family was then evaluated by an RD expert in CD management who conducted a comprehensive and standardized assessment and scored the family’s adherence. The agreement between parents and the RD was assessed using paired t test and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on their scores. Results One hundred twenty-two children and their families participated in the study, with a median of 32 months on a GFD. Excellent adherence (score 5 out of 5) was attributed to 60.5% of the sample by the RD. The parents scored adherence higher than the RD by an average difference of 0.41 scale points (95% CI, 0.28–0.54; P < 0.001). The agreement between parents and the registered dietitian was poor (ICC = 0.21). Conclusion Reliance on self-report through Likert scales for GFD adherence overestimates adherence and misses opportunities for patient and family education. Approximately 40% of children with CD have ongoing gluten exposure, highlighting the need for regular assessment by an RD expert in the GFD to identify education and counselling needs for children with CD.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".