A review of the role of intermittent fasting in the management of inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermittent fasting (IF) may be a weight management strategy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this short narrative review is to summarize the evidence related to IF in the management of IBD. A literature search of English publications related to IF or time-restricted feeding and IBD, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Four publications on studies of IF in IBD were found: three randomized controlled trials in animal models of colitis and one prospective observational study in patients with IBD. The results from animal studies suggest either moderate or no changes in weight but improvements in colitis with IF. These improvements may be mediated through changes in the gut microbiome, decreased oxidative stress and increased colonic short-chain fatty acids. The study in humans was small and uncontrolled, and it did not assess changes in weight, making it difficult to draw conclusions around the effects of IF on changes in weight or disease course. Given that preclinical evidence suggests intermittent fasting may play a beneficial role in IBD, randomized controlled trials in large patients with active disease are warranted to determine whether intermittent fasting could be an integrated therapy for patients with IBD management, either for weight or for disease management. These studies should also explore the potential mechanisms of action related to intermittent fasting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".