MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Celiac Disease: Education, Barriers to Care, Dietary Recommendations, and Screening

2014· article· en· W2977733551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rohit Chappidi, Abdillahi Abdinoor, Andelka LoSavio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineDiseasePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: After the diagnosis of celiac disease (CD) is made, there are varying levels of support provided to patients by their gastroenterologists. The prevalence of CD appears to be rising dramatically, and is suspected to affect nearly 3 million Americans. If left untreated, CD can cause a variety of complications ranging from iron deficiency to osteoporosis to small intestinal neoplasms. To gain a deeper understanding of gastroenterologists’ practices pertaining to CD, we examined physician-_provided patient education, identified barriers to care, discerned what dietary recommendations are made, established screening labs, and identified vaccination practices via physician completed survey. Methods: Gastroenterology physicians at Digestive Diseases Weekly in Chicago, IL (May 2014) were asked to complete a survey regarding their practices related to CD. Results: Seventy-eight gastroenterologists working in 5 continents were polled; 53% practice in the U.S. and Canada, and 86% were attending physicians. The number of CD patients (and % of MDs) seen on a monthly basis in clinic were: 1-9 (73%), 10-30 (22%), and >30% (5%), respectively. Lack of time, lack of compensation, and limitation in knowledge of gluten restricted products were cited as barriers to care 52.5%, 7.7%, and 24.4% of the time, respectively. The most frequent form of education provided by MDs was referrals to dietitians (64%) and nutritionists (36%). Some physicians also provided educational resources via the internet, various smartphone applications, and nutrition books. Approximately 54% of MDs provided direct recommendations on consumption of gluten-free products. A majority (91%) recommend strict adherence to a gluten-free diet, whereas only 2.5% recommend permissive gluten intake and 6% deferred to nutritionists. The 3 most commonly screened labs were iron studies (78%), vitamins A,D, E, B12 (82%), and folic acid (53.8%). Forty-four percent of gastroenterologists took primary responsibility to vaccinate their patients with pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination. Conclusion: Treatment approaches for CD are highly dependent on the practicing gastroenterologist. Lack of time, compensation, and understanding of gluten-free products are major barriers in physiciandirected education. As a result, physicians are making the appropriate referrals to dietitians, nutritionists, and online resources to improve patient education. Despite variable symptomatic response to gluten restriction among CD patients, most physicians recommend life-long and strict gluten restriction. The majority of gastroenterologists are not vaccinating their patients, and instead, defer this responsibility to primary care physicians.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207