Evaluation of Quality of Life in Adult Celiac Patients Living in Lithuania and Their Compliance with a Gluten-Free Diet: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Celiac disease (CD) is a common gluten-related disorder associated with significantly worsened quality of life. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the quality of life of adult celiac patients living in Lithuania and their compliance with a gluten-free diet. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on individuals aged 18 to 75 years diagnosed with CD and residing within the borders of Lithuania. This pilot study involved 73 participants, comprising 68 females and 5 males. The CD Specific Quality of Life Scale (CD-QOL) consisted of 20 items across four sub-dimensions. Responses to scale items were graded with a score ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The total score obtained from the scale can range up to 100, with a score < 40 classified as poor, 40–50 as moderate, and > 50 as good quality of life. Additionally, ten questions related to gluten-free diet-related quality of life were used. Results: The mean age of diagnosis for females (32.6 ± 11.7) was higher than that for males (22.0 ± 12.1), p < 0.05. The mean self-reported BMI for males (25.8 ± 4.5) was higher than that for females (22.3 ± 5.2), p < 0.05. The mean quality-of-life score (66.4 ± 12.5) was significantly higher in the good quality-of-life group compared to the poor group (33.7 ± 3.9), p < 0.001. Half of the respondents (50.7%) reported that gluten-free products are expensive, and 45.2% confirmed difficulties in dining out on a gluten-free diet. Conclusions: The results of this pilot study indicate that CD is associated with a worsened quality of life and that compliance with a gluten-free diet is primarily influenced by economic factors, such as the high cost of the diet.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".