Gluten‐free oats and diet quality in children and youth with celiac disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) requires lifelong adherence to a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). The GFD is associated with higher intakes of fat, added sugars, and glycemic index (GI) and lower diet quality (DQ) in youth with CD. Gluten-free oats (GF-oats) are safe for CD youth, but few studies have studied the nutritional contribution of GF-oats consumption on DQ in children with CD. We hypothesized that youth with CD who consume GF-oats as part of their GFD will have higher DQ, micronutrient and fiber content, and lower GI than a GFD without GF-oats. METHODS: A case-control analysis using age-sex matched controls was performed in youth (ages 3-18 years) with CD in a 1:2 (N = 16 GF-oats cases: N = 32 Oat-free cases) ratio to compare differences in macro- and micronutrient (Canadian nutrient file), GI (mixed-method approach), DQ (healthy-eating index) between case-controls using validated methodologies. Dietary adequacy was determined by comparisons to dietary reference intakes (DRI) and to gluten free food guide (GFFG) recommendations. RESULTS: GF-oats did not significantly improve DQ (68.5 ± 16 [cases] vs. 64.3 ± 13 [controls], macro- and micronutrient, fiber intake, or the percentage of children meeting DRIs (p > 0.05). Children consuming GF-oats had lower dietary GI than children not consuming GF-oats (50.6 ± 2.4 [+GF-oats] vs. 56.1 ± 7.4 [-GF-oats]; p = 0.05). No differences in DQ occurred (±GF-oats) when following GFFG recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: GF-oats are not a major determining factor of overall DQ in CD youth. Regardless of the oats in the GFD, following the pediatric GFFG was more important to DQ.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".