Implementation of the low FODMAP diet in functional gastrointestinal symptoms: A real‐world experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet reduces functional gastrointestinal symptoms (FGID) when implemented by dietitian-delivered education in clinical trials, but it is unknown how well the diet is followed in routine clinical care and if differences exist when implemented by physician or dietitian. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world experience of patients recommended the diet. METHODS: This case-series interviewed FGID patients attending a gastroenterology clinic with previous recommendation to trial the low FODMAP diet, examining who recommended the diet and what their percentage improvement was. To evaluate implementation of the diet's 3 phases, questions were constructed based on current literature and clinical guidelines regarding length of initial restriction and food knowledge (Phase-1), number of foods re-challenged (Phase-2) and food re-introduction as tolerated (Phase-3). The comprehensive nutrition assessment questionnaire provided daily FODMAP intake. Data were analyzed using chi-squared tests. KEY RESULTS: In 80 patients (21 male), the diet was recommended by the gastroenterologist in 53%, general practitioner 22%, dietitian 9% and other 15%. 30% saw a dietitian for guidance. 55% reported a ≥50% symptom improvement. The diet was followed appropriately during Phase-1 by 78% (with vs without a dietitian, 96% vs 71%; P = .02), Phase-2 by 48% (70% vs 39%; P = .02) and Phase-3 by 40% (65% vs 29%; P < .01). A FODMAP intake of <12 g/d (considered therapeutic) was achieved by 44% (72% vs 31%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Symptom improvement was reported in half of patients, but many did not reach the therapeutic FODMAP intake target, especially without dietitian education. Compliance was poor in Phase-2 and Phase-3 but improved with dietitian guidance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".