MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221120861 · doi:10.1111/nmo.14356

Long‐term personalized low FODMAP diet in IBS

2022· review· en· W4221120861 on OpenAlexaff
Giada De Palma, Přemysl Berčík

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrritable bowel syndromePsychological interventionMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients often resort to dietary interventions to manage their symptoms, as these are frequently exacerbated by various food items. A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) is now considered by many a first-line treatment option for IBS, as it has been found to be superior to alternative dietary interventions. However, concerns have been raised as restricting fermentable carbohydrates might result in nutritional deficits or alter composition and function of the gut microbiome in the long term. The study by Staudacher et al., published in this issue of the journal, is the first prospective study to follow IBS patients after completing all three phases of the low FODMAPs diet (restriction, reintroduction, and personalization), demonstrating that this is safe and effective in long-term, when patients are supervised by a dietician. This mini-review provides an up-to-date overview of the use of fermentable carbohydrate's restrictions for symptom management in IBS patients, while summarizing the current knowledge on the possible mechanisms of action behind low fermentable carbohydrate diet efficacy.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207