S845 Comparing Different Elimination Diets in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the esophagus often managed through dietary interventions. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of various elimination diets in treating EoE, aiming to identify the most effective dietary strategies for symptom management. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Central, and ScienceDirect were comprehensively searched from inception until January 2025 for studies comparing the elemental diet, 1 food elimination diet (OFED), 4 food elimination diet (FFED), FFED plus amino acids (FFED + AAF), 6 food elimination diet (SFED), and SFED plus amino acids (SFED + AAF). This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using the R version 4.2.1 employing the “netmeta” package. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled under the random effects model for the dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was histological remission, defined as an eosinophil count ≤15. The ranking of the treatments was calculated using P-scores. The risk of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, and the study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A rank-heat plot was made to visualize the ranking of different diet regimens based on P-score. Results: Seven studies with a total of 567 patients were included in the final analysis. For the outcome of histological remission, FFED + AAF was ranked as the best treatment (P-score = 0.84), followed by elemental diet (P-score = 0.67) and OFED (P-score = 0.41). The SFED + AAF diet was ranked as the least favorable intervention for histological remission (P-score = 0.30). Conclusion: The 4-food elimination diet with amino acids (FFED + AAF) emerged as the most effective dietary intervention for achieving histological remission in EoE, followed by the elemental diet. In contrast, the 6-food elimination diet with amino acids (SFED + AAF) was ranked as the least effective treatment.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".