Systematic review: early feeding practices and the risk of coeliac disease. A 2022 update and revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of early feeding practices on the risk of coeliac disease (CD) remain debated. AIMS: To update evidence on these practices on the risk of CD and/or CD-related autoimmunity (CDA), defined as anti-transglutaminase or anti-endomysial antibody positivity METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to May 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RESULTS: We included 36 publications (30 studies). In the population at genetic risk of developing CD (HLA DQ2/DQ8-positive), exclusive or any breastfeeding and longer breastfeeding duration did not reduce the risk of developing CD/CDA during childhood. While a meta-analysis of four case-control studies showed a decreased risk for CD when gluten was introduced during breastfeeding, this was not shown in RCTs and cohort studies. Age at gluten introduction was not associated with cumulative CD/CDA risk, although two RCTs suggested that earlier gluten introduction was associated with earlier CDA appearance. Evidence from six observational studies suggests that consumption of a higher amount of gluten at weaning and/or thereafter may increase CD risk. There is insufficient evidence to determine the amount of gluten associated with an increased CD/CDA risk. Regarding whether infant feeding practices modulate the risk conferred by different HLA genotypes results were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: For the population at genetic risk of CD, breastfeeding and age at gluten introduction have no effect on its cumulative incidence during childhood. There is some evidence for an effect of the amount of gluten consumed at weaning and/or thereafter on CD/CDA risk.
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 | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".