The Association between Adherence to the MIND Diet and Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No earlier study examined the association between adherence to the MIND (Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay) diet and odds of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This study was conducted to examine the relationship between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of IBS among Iranian adults. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, dietary intakes of 3,362 adults were examined using a validated Dish-Based 106-item Semi-Quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (DS-FFQ). The MIND diet score was constructed based on participants' dietary intakes obtained from DS-FFQ. IBS was evaluated using a modified Persian version of the Rome III questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 22.2% of the study population were affected by IBS (n = 748). We observed no significant relationship between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of IBS in the whole population (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.71-1.31). By gender and BMI status, no significant association between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of IBS was seen. Also, no significant association was found between adherence to the MIND diet and IBS subtypes. CONCLUSION: No significant association was found between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of IBS. Further studies are needed to examine the association between dietary patterns and IBS.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".