MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977460386 · doi:10.3390/nu11102375

The Gut Microbiota in Celiac Disease and probiotics

2019· review· en· W2977460386 on OpenAlexaff
Richa Chibbar, Levinus A. Dieleman

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysbiosisEnteropathyMicrobiomeDiseaseGut floraMedicineImmunologyGluten freeImmune systemGut microbiomeInflammatory bowel diseaseBiologyBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Celiac disease (CeD) is an immune-mediated enteropathy, and unique in that the specific trigger is known: gluten. The current mainstay of therapy is a gluten-free diet (GFD). As novel therapies are being developed, complementary strategies are also being studied, such as modulation of the gut microbiome. The gut microbiota is involved in the initiation and perpetuation of intestinal inflammation in several chronic diseases. Intestinal dysbiosis has been reported in CeD patients, untreated or treated with GFD, compared to healthy subjects. Several studies have identified differential bacterial populations associated with CeD patients and healthy subjects. However, it is still not clear if intestinal dysbiosis is the cause or effect of CeD. Probiotics have also been considered as a strategy to modulate the gut microbiome to an anti-inflammatory state. However, there is a paucity of data to support their use in treating CeD. Further studies are needed with therapeutic microbial formulations combined with human trials on the use of probiotics to treat CeD by restoring the gut microbiome to an anti-inflammatory state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations138
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207