Patient Perspectives on the Long-term Management of Celiac Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOAL: The aim of this study was to survey adults with celiac disease (CD) on the utility of specific aspects of follow-up and on information needs. BACKGROUND: Currently, the treatment for CD is strict gluten avoidance. Although this places the onus on the patient for disease management, patient perspectives on CD care have not been formally assessed. STUDY: The Manitoba Celiac Disease Cohort prospectively enrolled adults newly diagnosed with CD using serology and histology. At the 24-month study visits, participants rated the utility of aspects of CD care on a 5-point scale anchored by "not at all useful" and "very useful" and the helpfulness of information on CD-related topics on a 6-point scale anchored by "not at all helpful" and "very helpful." RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 149 of 211 cohort members [median age 40 (interquartile range 30 to 56) y; 68% female]. Adherence to a gluten-free diet was good. Most participants (87%) responded that they should be seen regularly for medical follow-up of CD, preferably every 6 (26%) or 12 months (48%). Blood tests were the most highly rated care component (rated scored ≥4/5 by 78% of respondents), followed by the opportunity to ask about vitamins and supplements (50%), symptom review (47%), and information on CD research (44%). Diet review was not considered helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Two years after diagnosis, most individuals with CD find regular specialist follow-up helpful, particularly for biochemical assessment of disease activity and its complications. Furthermore, information on research and long-term complications of CD is also valued.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".