Liberalized Versus Strict Cow’s Milk Elimination for the Treatment of Children with Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cow’s milk is a commonly implicated trigger in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Exclusive cow’s milk avoidance has been reported previously, but the degree of elimination required for remission is unclear. Strict food avoidance may confer a risk of developing immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cow’s milk elimination (CME) in children with EoE and compare responses of strict and liberalized CME diets. Children (≤16 years) diagnosed with EoE who were treated with exclusive CME diets were evaluated clinically and histologically. Strict diets eliminated all milk products, including ‘may-contain’ and baked milk goods. Liberalized diets eliminated obvious sources including milk, cheese, yogurt, cream-based products but permitted foods with traces of milk and baked goods. Cow’s milk elimination induced histological remission of <15 eosinophils per high-powered field in 18 of 31 children (58%) and complete remission in 23%. Overall, 77% had decreased eosinophils with this single intervention. Symptoms were improved in 90% of patients, regardless of histologic response. A liberalized (n=7) CME diet was associated with a nonsignificantly lower response compared with strict (n=24) elimination (29% versus 67%, P=0.099). Eight responders to strict elimination were transitioned to a liberalized diet; 63% maintained remission. Cow’s milk elimination induced clinicopathological remission in a majority of patients with EoE, supporting its use as a first-line intervention. Liberalized CME allows dietary freedom and may prevent subsequent development of anaphylactic milk allergy but may be inferior to strict CME for improving EoE.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".