Determinants of complementary and integrative medicine use in inflammatory bowel disease: a focus on probiotics, prebiotics, and fermentable dietary fibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) modalities, particularly probiotics, prebiotics, and fermentable dietary fibers (PPF) use in IBD patients is common and increasing, particularly for symptom management. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of CIM and PPF use among IBD patients and to identify potential demographic and clinical factors associated with utilization. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of adult IBD patients at a tertiary IBD centre in Western Canada. A self-administered questionnaire and chart review were performed, focusing on demographic and clinical characteristics, CIM and PPF use in the past year (current) and/or lifetime, and sources of awareness about PPF products. Results: A total of 267 patients were included, 182 with CD and 85 with UC. Overall, 89.9% of participants reported CIM use in the current year, while the current and lifetime prevalence of PPF use was 51 and 63%, respectively. UC diagnosis was associated with increased likelihood of current PPF use (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.10-3.12). Holding a university degree was associated with increased likelihood of lifetime PPF use (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.07-4.55). PPF awareness through gastroenterologists (OR: 3.19, 95% CI: 1.55-6.58) was significantly associated with lifetime PPF use. Conclusion: Use of CIM modalities such as PPF is common among IBD patients. This study found that lifetime PPF use was associated with higher level of education and awareness through gastroenterologists. Healthcare providers, and specifically gastroenterology specialists, should routinely inquire about PPF use and educate IBD patients. Further studies are required to determine the benefit derived from these products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".