MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213068559 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.033

A34 GLUTEN-FREE DIET IMPROVES DYSPEPTIC SYMPTOMS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES IN WHOM CELIAC DISEASE WAS EXCLUDED

2022· article· en· W4213068559 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Morell Miranda, Gaston Rueda, Caroline Seiler, María Inés Pinto-Sánchez, Přemysl Berčík

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastric emptyingInternal medicineGastroenterologyGluten freeType 1 diabetesGastroparesisAbdominal painBloatingQuality of life (healthcare)Diabetes mellitusNauseaDiseaseDepression (economics)Coeliac diseaseStomachEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) often suffer from dyspeptic symptoms, such as abdominal pain, bloating, early satiety, nausea and vomiting. T1DM shares genetic risk factors (HLA-DQ2 and DQ8) with celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder caused by an immune reaction to gluten. Patients with concomitant T1DM and celiac disease benefit from a gluten-free diet (GFD), as it improves their symptoms, gastric emptying and small intestinal inflammation. However, it is unknown whether GFD has any benefit in patients with T1DM without celiac disease, who present with symptoms of dyspepsia or gastroparesis. Aims To investigate the role of a GFD in the management of moderate to severe dyspeptic symptoms in non-celiac patients with T1DM. Methods We enrolled 13 adult T1DM patients, in whom celiac disease was ruled out, suffering from two or more upper GI symptoms. The patients were instructed to adhere to a strict GFD for a period of 1 month, under the supervision of a dietitian. Glycemic levels were monitored by a continuous glucose monitoring device (CGM) for 2 weeks before, and at the end of the GFD period. Standardized questionnaires were used to assess upper GI symptoms (Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptoms Index, Short Form Leeds Dyspepsia questionnaire), general quality of life (Patient Assessment of Upper GI Disorders Quality of Life), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression scale). Blood samples were collected to assess glycaemia (Hb1Ac) and immune markers. Scintigraphy and videofluoroscopy were used to assess gastric emptying. Results After one month on a GFD, T1DM patients reported a significant improvement in nausea (p<0.05), sensation of fullness (p<0.001) and bloating (p<0.0001). Overall dyspepsia symptoms also improved (p<0.01), with 92% of patients reporting decreased dyspepsia scores. Moreover, there was an improvement in the quality of life (p<0.01), and decreased scores of anxiety and depression (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). There were no changes in gastric emptying or glycemic management metrics, such as mean glucose level, time in target, glucose variance or HbA1c levels. Interestingly, one year after the end of the study, 63.6% of participants continued to follow a GFD. The most common reason to remain on a GFD reported by these patients was “because it improved GI symptoms”. Questionnaire data collected at the follow-up demonstrated that the improvement of dyspeptic symptoms persisted after 1 year on GFD (p<0.001). Conclusions GFD improves dyspeptic symptoms in T1D patients without concomitant celiac disease, without affecting their glycemic levels or gastric emptying. Although these results need to be validated in a larger study, our data suggest that GFD could be used as a therapeutical tool for T1DM patients grappling with burdensome upper GI symptoms. Gluten-Free diet improves dyspepsia symptoms in Type 1 Diabetes patients, after 1 month and 1 year Funding Agencies CIHR

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207