Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038204›Full record

ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2025

Celiac Disease and Gluten Cross-Contact: How Much is too Much?

Jessica Stout, Kerstin Austin, Sara Bonnes, Jason DuBroff, Alicia Muratore

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current nutrition reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessica StoutDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. jessica.stout@utah.edu.
Kerstin AustinDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
Sara BonnesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Jason DuBroffDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Alicia MuratoreDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aimed to examine the variability in the susceptibility of the small intestine to injury when exposed to gluten among patients with celiac disease, particularly in the context of gluten cross-contact. It sought to address whether clinicians could recommend individualized gluten exposure levels based on current research to improve patient outcomes and quality of life, given the difficulties of maintaining a strict gluten-free diet. RECENT

findingsWhile some evidence suggests variability in small intestine susceptibility to injury, no current studies offer a reliable method for clinicians to stratify patients or recommend safe gluten levels. Research points to possible roles of the microbiome and immune responses in susceptibility to injury, though no definitive conclusions have been made. There is insufficient evidence to safely recommend varying gluten thresholds for celiac patients. While factors like the microbiome and cytokine responses may influence the small intestine's susceptibility to injury when exposed to gluten, the recommendation of a strict gluten-free diet remains the best approach until more conclusive research emerges. Future studies may help tailor dietary advice and improve quality of life for individuals with celiac disease.

Indexed as

Celiac DiseaseGlutensIntestine, SmallDiet, Gluten-FreeGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansQuality of LifeGlutensCeliac DiseaseCross-contactCross-contaminationGluten-freeGluten immunogenic peptidesGluten intolerance

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.