Nutritional interventions in adult fibrostenotic Crohn’s disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Management of Crohn's disease (CD) using dietary interventions has become an area of increased research interest. There is a lack of specific research exploring if diet and nutrition interventions are beneficial in patients with strictures, as current dietary recommendations in fibrostenotic CD are often based on clinical judgment. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of dietary interventions in fibrostenotic CD on medical and surgical outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid) was conducted. Studies reporting dietary interventions or nutritional factors in fibrostenotic CD were included. Outcomes for studies assessing dietary interventions such as enteral nutrition were evaluated as changes in (1) CD symptoms (CD Activity Index), (2) stricture parameters on diagnostic imaging, and (3) rates of surgical or medical intervention following dietary interventions. Results: Five studies were included in this review. Three studies assessed exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN), one evaluated total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and one studied a liquid diet. All included studies evaluated symptoms as an outcome, while diagnostic imaging parameters and surgical outcomes in the studies were either absent or too heterogeneous to appraise improvement post dietary intervention. Included EEN studies displayed similar efficacy, with approximately 60% of patients having symptom improvement. The included TPN study also reported 75% of patients with symptom improvement, while the liquid diet did not. Conclusion: Exclusive enteral nutrition and total parental nutrition may provide benefit for use as a dietary intervention for fibrostenotic CD. There remains a need for high-quality controlled trials which utilize standardized definitions of strictures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".