Effects of Ultra-Processed Foods and Food Additives on Disease Activity in Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This scoping review aims to identify and map out the current state of research on the relationship between ultra-processed foods (UPF) intake and disease activity and symptoms in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: A search strategy was developed using key terms, and the search was conducted through the PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations databases to identify relevant studies. Data were comprehensively extracted, analyzed, and synthesized. Results: A total of 18 studies were included in the review: 7 on UPF and 11 on food additives. Most prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested a positive association between UPF intake and IBD activity, measured using disease activity indexes and fecal calprotectin (FC) as an inflammatory marker. Trials excluding food additives from the diet provided inconclusive evidence regarding their effectiveness in reducing IBD symptoms or disease activity. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests potential links between UPF and food additive intake and IBD outcomes. Yet, heterogeneity in UPF definitions, variability in additive formulations, and the lack of standardized dietary assessment methods limit definitive conclusions. Future studies should integrate standardized exposure assessment methods with validated outcome measures to better clarify the role of UPF and food additives on IBD trajectory.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".