Toward New Paradigms in the Follow Up of Adult Patients With Celiac Disease on a Gluten-Free Diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gluten free diet is the only available treatment for celiac disease (CeD). Patients with CeD who do not adhere to a strict gluten-free diet (GFD) have been found to have complications involving nutritional deficiencies, increased risk of bone fractures, increased risk of mortality, and certain types of cancers. Complete removal of gluten from the diet in a patient with CeD often results in symptomatic, serologic, and histologic remission. However, strict compliance with the diet is challenging. Long-term follow-up care is needed to assure treatment compliance and positive health outcomes. Monitoring celiac specific serology, nutrient deficiencies, bone mineral density, and assessment of GFD compliance have been recommended in clinical practice. However, there is no consensus on which specific tests and how often they should be performed during the follow up. Here, we have performed a review of the literature on current strategies to follow up patients with CeD. There are new tools for monitoring adherence to the GFD which could change some paradigms in following up treated patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".