A107 PATIENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF CELIAC DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Celiac disease (CD) is a common chronic gastrointestinal illness with a range of manifestations. The only available treatment is strict gluten avoidance, therefore patients are effectively self-managed. Despite the critical role patients play in their treatment, patient perspectives on long-term CD care have not been formally assessed and are therefore not represented in current clinical guidelines. Aims To determine the opinions of CD patients on the need for long-term CD follow-up, the utility of various aspects of CD follow-up, and the areas in which further information is desired. Methods The Manitoba Celiac Disease Cohort includes newly diagnosed adults with elevated TTG and/or EMA antibodies and Marsh III histology. At the 24-month follow-up visit, participants were asked to rate the utility of various aspects of CD care from 1–5 (low-high) and their desire for further information on CD-related issues from 1–6 (low-high). Results A total of 213 patients were recruited and 137 participants completed the online survey (median age 41 [interquartile range 29–57] years; 68% female). Adherence to a gluten free diet was variable, with 29% of patients having TTG antibodies above the upper limit of normal. Two-thirds of participants felt they should be seen regularly for their celiac disease, while 79.8% of those who wished to be followed felt they should be seen every 6–12 months. Blood tests were the most highly rated component of CD care (scored ≥4 by 78% of respondents). Celiac symptom review, information on research in celiac disease, and the opportunity to ask questions about vitamins and supplements were also positively regarded. Diet review was not generally considered helpful. 79% of patients desired further information on research in CD, while approximately 60% desired information on the long-term complications of CD and the risk of nutritional deficiencies. Conclusions The majority of CD patients find regular specialist follow-up helpful, particularly for biochemical assessment of disease activity and its complications. Further information on CD research and the long-term complications of CD should be addressed in follow-up visits. These aspects of follow-up care should be reflected in future guidelines. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".