A236 A REAL-WORLD EVALUATION OF THE LOW FODMAP DIET IMPLEMENTATION: POOR COMPLIANCE IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED BY GUIDANCE FROM A DIETITIAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary modifications are now frequently used to manage gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms such as abdominal pain and bloating in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols) diet has proven efficacy with dietitian-delivered education, but other forms of delivery have not been evaluated and it is unknown how patients proceed when they are recommended the diet by their physician. The aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world experience of patients who were recommended a low FODMAP diet. This was a retrospective evaluation of patients in a gastroenterology clinic with a previous recommendation to trial the low FODMAP diet or self-reported use of the diet. Patients were interviewed regarding who recommended the diet, what they felt their response was (as a percentage improvement), and their implementation of the diets 3-phases. Implementation of each phase was recorded as appropriate or not, depending on the length of time of restriction and food knowledge (phase 1: restriction), number of foods re-challenged (phase 2: re-challenge) and reintroduction of foods as tolerated (phase 3: long-term). Additional questionnaires were conducted including the comprehensive nutrition assessment questionnaire (CNAQ) providing data on daily FODMAP intake. Data was analyzed using percentages and unpaired t-tests. Seventy-nine patients undertook the study (56 IBS, 11 IBD, 12 other GI conditions; 21 male). The diet was recommended by the gastroenterologist in 54%, family doctor in 22%, and dietitian in 9%. Twenty-four (30%) of patients saw a dietitian for guidance. Overall, 56% of patients reported the diet provided a ≥50% improvement in their symptoms (67% who saw a dietitian, 51% who did not). However, the reported percentage improvement was not statistically different (55±31vs44±35, p=0.20). The diet was followed appropriately during phase 1 by 96% who saw a dietitian and 71% who did not. For phase 2, at least 2 foods were re-challenged by 70% of those who saw a dietitian vs 36% of those who did not. Phase 3, the long-term maintenance phase, was followed in 65% who saw a dietitian and 30% who did not. A FODMAP intake of <12g/day (considered therapeutic) was achieved by 79% who saw a dietitian vs 41% who did not. One third of patients recommended the low FODMAP diet see a dietitian for dietary guidance. Those who see a dietitian are more likely to appropriately undertake the 3-phases of the diet and reduce their FODMAP intake to therapeutic levels. This study highlights the importance of dietitian guidance for implementation of the low FODMAP diet. CIHRCanadian Nutrition Society
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".