A69 EXPANDED ROLE OF THE DIETITIAN IN THE CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH CELIAC DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The only available treatment for Celiac Disease (CeD) is adhering to a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). However, a GFD has been associated with multiple nutrient imbalance and deficiencies, which are often under-recognized and remain untreated. Aims To identify the reasons for referral to a registered dietitian (RD) and RD-recommended dietary interventions for patients with CeD attending a specialised Adult Celiac Disease Clinic. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review using nutrition assessment forms completed by the RD between November 2021 and May 2022. CeD diagnosis was performed through specific serology (anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA and anti-deamidated gliadin peptide IgG) and confirmed by duodenal biopsies demonstrating villous atrophy. We collected data on demographics, diagnosis date, nutritional status (BMI), micronutrients measured in serum, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, reason for consult, and the recommendations made by the RD. Data was collected in RedCap (v. 11.1, 2021, US) and expressed as both a proportion and Median (IQR). Results A total of 136 visits from 102 patients were included in the analysis. Of them, 77 were female (75.5%) with a mean age of 40.3 yrs (+/- 16.0). The median year of CeD diagnosis was 4 (IQR= 6) from 2002-2022. Patients reported various symptoms including bloating (50.9%), abdominal pain (34.3%), and constipation (23.5%). 56% of patients were overweight or obese (BMI ampersand:003E25), and 4.9% were undernourished (BMIampersand:003C18). The most common nutrient deficiencies were ferritin below 30 ng/mL (58.8%), zinc below 9.4 µmol/L (23.5%), and suboptimal levels of vitamin D (38.2%). The most common reasons for referral to the RD were to assess GFD adherence (44.1%), dietary management of GI symptoms (30.4%) and nutritional optimization (24.5%). We identified 18 different interventions recommended by the RD, the most common being how to prevent gluten cross-contamination (58.8%), tips for dining out (43.1%), GF diet education (32.4%), and increasing fibre intake (30.4%). The most common reasons for follow up visits (n=34) included dietary management of GI symptoms (60.9%) and GFD adherence (43.5%). Conclusions Patients with CeD face multiple nutritional challenges associated with following a GFD, and a number of GI symptoms. Although the GFD is the only available treatment, this review identifies the need for multiple individualized dietary interventions, which require and encourage the inclusion of a specialized RD to ensure personalized, effective care and support in the management of CeD. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".