MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213155388 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.190

A191 PERSISTENT BENEFIT OF DIETITIAN-LED GLUTEN-FREE DIET EDUCATION AT CD DIAGNOSIS ON DIETARY ADHERENCE IN CHILDREN AND ADULTS WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES AND CELIAC DISEASE

2022· article· en· W4213155388 on OpenAlexaff
P Marcon, Antoine Clarke, Katrina Anne Pace, Charlotte McDonald, Fred Saibil, Heather Lochnan, Zubin Punthakee, Farid H. Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGluten freeType 1 diabetesPopulationGeneralized estimating equationPsychological interventionDiabetes mellitusAnthropometryCohortRegimenCoeliac diseasePediatricsInternal medicineDiseasePhysical therapyEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Celiac disease (CD) is a common autoimmune comorbidity of type 1 diabetes (T1D) with a gluten-free diet (GFD) being the current gold standard treatment for this condition. Adherence to a GFD can be impacted by several factors including dietetic counselling, yet little is known about the impact of clinic-based interventions on long-term GFD adherence in this population. Aims To prospectively evaluate the impact of a dietitian-led GFD education intervention on adherence to a GFD in children and adults with T1D and CD over a 3-year period. Methods A cohort of N=62 pediatric and adult subjects who screened seropositive for CD as part of the CD-DIET clinical trial were followed over a 3-year period post-CD diagnosis and assessed on the basis of the GFD education regimen they received at initial CD diagnosis. This included 3 groups: 1) intensive dietitian training (IDT = 5 dietitian visits over 1 year while following GFD), 2) single dietitian training (SDT = 1 GFD training session after 1 year of following GCD) and 3) no dietitian training (NDT) at CD diagnosis. Annual visits included serologic testing of TTG-IgA titres, anthropometric assessments and the completion of questionnaires evaluating diet and adherence to a GFD. Data was analysed longitudinally using linear mixed effects and generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression modeling adjusting for the fixed effects of age, sex, duration of diabetes and time. Results At baseline, participants who received IDT (n=15), SDT (n=16) and NDT (n=31) represented 24.2%, 25.8%, and 50.0% of the cohort, respectively. Over the 3-year study period, participants in the IDT group had the greatest odds of self-reporting being a GFD, with odds 4.3 (95%CI: 1.1 to 16.4; P=0.033) and 9.5 (95%CI: 2.7 to 33.7; P<0.001) greater than the SDT and NDT groups, respectively. The assessment of daily gluten intakes less than 10mg, as recommended for a GFD, revealed a lack of differences between the IDT and SDT groups. In contrast, the NDT group had significantly lower odds of meeting this threshold relative to those who received IDT (OR=0.2; 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.56; P=0.004). No longitudinal differences in TTG-IgA levels were seen between groups over the 3-year period. Conclusions In diabetes patients greater contact with a dietitian at CD diagnosis was associated with higher levels of GFD adherence over time, which was not reflected in follow-up Serologic evaluation. These findings highlight the importance of nutritional support in patients with both diabetes and celiac disease at the time of CD diagnosis. In addition, following TTG-IgA alone does not fully inform dietary compliance to a GFD. Diet teaching stratification Diet assignment Funding Agencies Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation / PSI

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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