Nutritional implications of dietary gluten avoidance among Canadians: results from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) is the only available treatment for gluten-related disorders, although a GFD may also be followed for discretionary reasons. The main objectives of the present study were to (1) describe and test for differences in key nutrient intakes among Canadians who follow a GFD compared with Canadians with no dietary exclusions and (2) describe additional dietary avoidances adhered to by Canadians who avoid gluten. We conducted a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition Survey, which included a general health survey and 24-h dietary recall (n 20 487). Participants were categorised as those who avoid dietary gluten and those who reported no avoidances. Key nutrient intakes were assessed, as a percentage of Dietary Recommended Intakes, including fibre, B vitamins, vitamin D, Ca, Fe, Na and Zn, and compared between the two groups using t tests. Canadians who avoided gluten had significantly lower intakes of folate, vitamin B12, vitamin D, Fe, Na and Ca compared with those who did not avoid any food groups. However, Canadians who reported following a GFD were significantly more likely to use vitamin or mineral supplements in the past 30 d. More than 20 % of those who avoided gluten also avoided dairy products. Findings suggest that following a GFD places Canadians at risk for nutrient inadequacies, particularly folate, Ca and vitamin D. Further research is required to further examine how multiple dietary avoidances among those who avoid gluten may contribute to dietary inadequacies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".