The dietary inflammatory potential and its role in the risk and progression of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Inflammation is central in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) pathogenesis. Because of diet's pro- and anti-inflammatory properties, multiple observational studies have explored the link between the dietary inflammatory potential and IBD-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically review the literature and provide a comprehensive overview of the dietary inflammatory potential and its association with the development and progression of IBD. METHODS: Literature was searched systematically on the 2nd of May 2024 in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify the observational studies that explored the link between the dietary inflammatory potential and IBD-related outcomes. A higher dietary inflammatory potential was defined as the ability of a dietary pattern to promote inflammation in the body. Studies were included only if they quantified this using a dietary index, such as the dietary inflammatory index (DII) and the empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP). Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 165 identified records met the inclusion criteria. Seven investigated the risk of developing IBD, but with mixed results. Nine investigated the progression of IBD, which indicated that a higher dietary inflammatory potential contributed to higher disease activity and associated symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggested that a higher dietary inflammatory potential worsens the condition of IBD patients, while the link with the risk of developing the disease was less clear. To elucidate this, high-quality intervention studies are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".