P025 A review of the newly implemented Inflammatory Bowel Disease dietetic service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Nutrition plays an important role in the onset and later the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients are becoming progressively interested in non-pharmacological methods of managing IBD and the dietary advice around this. It is reported that only 7% of services have enough dietitians to meet the IBD Standards recommendation. A year after the implementation of a new dietetic post at Whipps Cross Hospital, it was decided to review the effectiveness of this post for patients with a survey. Methods The inclusion criteria were patients with a diagnosis of IBD, reviewed at least twice by the IBD dietitian and patients who are under the IBD team at Whipps Cross Hospital. Patients were telephoned and asked if they consented to providing their email address for the anonymous survey link to be sent to. The survey was emailed to 40 patients. Six questions were asked on the survey, the survey provider was Survey Monkey. Results The final cohort included a 53% response rate to the survey. Age range was 18–64 years old. 95% of patients felt their consultation time was long enough. 95% of patients thought they had sufficient dietetic contact. 95% of patients felt the dietitian involved them in decision making. 67% of patients thought nutrition input improved their health/quality of life, with 29% being unsure. 100% thought having access to an IBD dietitian was useful. 71% of patients rated their dietetic care as excellent and 29% rated it as good. Conclusion The response from the majority of IBD patients was that nutrition input was helpful; with all patients finding the care provided by the dietitian was either good or excellent. All patients found it supportive to have dietetic access as part of a multidisciplinary approach to their IBD care. These findings support the best practice guidelines for having a dietitian post as part of the IBD team.
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 | 0.016 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".