MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170494020 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab015

The complexities of approaching nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease: current recommendations and future directions

2021· review· en· W3170494020 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey Russell, Maria Teresa Balart, Pablo E. Serrano, David Armstrong, María Inés Pinto-Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionMedicineUlcerative colitisMalabsorptionInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseMicronutrientCrohn's diseaseIntensive care medicineInflammatory Bowel DiseasesQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineComplicationGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis predispose patients to malnutrition due to a combination of increased basal metabolic rate, decreased oral intake, and increased nutritional losses and malabsorption. Malnutrition is common, affecting up to 75% of patients with Crohn's disease and 62% of patients with ulcerative colitis, and is associated with worse disease prognosis, higher complication rates, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality risk. It is imperative to screen patients with IBD for malnutrition to assess those at increased risk and treat accordingly to prevent progression and complications. This literature review provides an overall approach to optimizing nutrition in IBD, focusing on the assessment for the diagnosis of malnutrition, management of macro- and micronutrient deficiencies, and identification of areas for future study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207