Associations between diet and disease progression and symptomatology in multiple sclerosis : a systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. \nAlthough many people with MS (pwMS) modify their diet after diagnosis, there is still no consensus on dietary recommendations for pwMS. A number of observational studies have explored associations of diet and MS progression, but no studies have systematically reviewed the evidence. This systematic review aimed to provide an objective synthesis of the evidence for associations between diet and MS progression, including symptoms and clinical outcomes from observational studies.\n\nMethods. \nWe performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic database searches were performed for studies completed up to 26 July 2023 using PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid), and Scopus, followed by citation and reference list checking. We included studies using diet quality scores or dietary indices. Studies assessing individual foods, nutrients, or dietary supplements were excluded. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of included studies.\n\nResults. \nThirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 were cross-sectional and 12 prospective. The most frequent outcomes assessed were disability (n=19), quality of life (n=12), fatigue (n=12), depression (n=9), relapse (n=8), anxiety (n=3), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes (n=4). Based on prospective studies, this review suggests that diet might be associated with quality of life and disability. There were also potential effects of higher diet quality scores on improved fatigue, disability, depression, anxiety, and MRI outcomes but more evidence is needed from prospective studies.\n\nConclusions. \nObservational studies show some evidence for an association between diet and MS symptoms, particularly quality of life and disability. However, the impact of diet on other MS outcomes remains inconclusive. Ultimately, our findings suggest more evidence is needed from prospective studies and well-designed tailored intervention studies to confirm associations.
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 | 0.022 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".