Screening and Treatment Outcomes in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes and Asymptomatic Celiac Disease: The CD-DIET Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe celiac disease (CD) screening rates and glycemic outcomes of a gluten-free diet (GFD) in patients with type 1 diabetes who are asymptomatic for CD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Asymptomatic patients (8–45 years) were screened for CD. Biopsy-confirmed CD participants were randomized to GFD or gluten-containing diet (GCD) to assess changes in HbA1c and continuous glucose monitoring over 12 months. RESULTS Adults had higher CD-seropositivity rates than children (6.8% [95% CI 4.9–8.2%, N = 1,298] vs. 4.7% [95% CI 3.4–5.9%, N = 1,089], P = 0.035) with lower rates of prior CD screening (6.9% vs. 44.2%, P < 0.0001). Fifty-one participants were randomized to a GFD (N = 27) or GCD (N = 24). No HbA1c differences were seen between the groups (+0.14%, 1.5 mmol/mol; 95% CI −0.79 to 1.08; P = 0.76), although greater postprandial glucose increases (4-h +1.5 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.4–2.7; P = 0.014) emerged with a GFD. CONCLUSIONS CD is frequently observed in asymptomatic patients with type 1 diabetes, and clinical vigilance is warranted with initiation of a GFD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".