Perioperative Dietary Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is rising worldwide and no cure is available. Many patients require surgery and they often present with nutritional deficiencies. Although randomised controlled trials of dietary therapy are lacking, expert IBD centres have long-established interdisciplinary care, including tailored nutritional therapy, to optimise clinical outcomes and resource utilisation. This topical review aims to share expertise and offers current practice recommendations to optimise outcomes of IBD patients who undergo surgery. METHODS: A consensus expert panel consisting of dietitians, surgeons, and gastroenterologists, convened by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation, performed a systematic literature review. Nutritional evaluation and dietary needs, perioperative optimis ation, surgical complications, long-term needs, and special situations were critically appraised. Statements were developed using a Delphi methodology incorporating three successive rounds. Current practice positions were set when ≥80% of participants agreed on a recommendation. RESULTS: A total of 26 current practice positions were formulated which address the needs of IBD patients perioperatively and in the long term following surgery. Routine screening, perioperative optimisation by oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition, dietary fibre, and supplements were reviewed. IBD-specific situations, including management of patients with a restorative proctocolectomy, an ostomy, strictures, or short-bowel syndrome, were addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative dietary therapy improves the outcomes of IBD patients who undergo a surgical procedure. This topical review shares interdisciplinary expertise and provides guidance to optimise the outcomes of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. taking advantage of contemporary nutrition science.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".