MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400764089 · doi:10.3390/gidisord6030045

The Impact of a Gluten-Free Diet on Pregnant Women with Celiac Disease: Do We Need a Guideline to Manage Their Health?

2024· article· en· W4400764089 on OpenAlexaff
Yeliz Serin, Camilla Manini, P. Amato, Anil K. Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyGuidelineGluten freeLow birth weightDiseaseConfusionObstetricsPediatricsIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A healthy and balanced diet is a critical requirement for pregnant women as it directly influences both the mother’s and infant’s health. Poor maternal nutrition can lead to pregnancy-related complications with undesirable effects on the fetus. This requirement is equally important for pregnant women with celiac disease (CD) who are already on a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although the GFD is the sole treatment option for CD, it still presents some challenges and confusion for celiac women who wish to conceive. Poorly managed CD has been linked to miscarriages, preterm labor, low birth weight, and stillbirths. Current CD guidelines primarily focus on screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management but lack an evidence-based approach to determine appropriate energy requirements, recommended weight gain during pregnancy, target macronutrient distribution from the diet, the recommended intake of vitamins and minerals from diet and/or supplementation, timing for starting supplementation, and advised portions of gluten-free foods during pregnancy. We recommend and call for the development of such guidelines and/or authoritative papers in the future.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastrointestinal DisordersSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207