Talk:Gluten-related disorders

message: While I find this page and some of the associated pages on gluten sensitivity interesting in terms of the amount of data amassed and correlated, it is, as others suggested, too technical, and furthermore it's probably misleading for most non-medical audiences that can't easily distinguish between low-quality and high-quality evidence. The former predominates on most of these pages. It looks like someone just did a pubmed search for gluten sensitivity and then summarized everything they could find without regard for whether the findings had been replicated, distinguishing between causation and correlation, etc.
These pages make a lot of assertions that are begging to be qualified...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.146.147 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just too technical, misleading

message: I also agree that this article is too technical, and probably inaccessible to most people who'd want to read it.  Should we at least re-phrase the introduction so that it's more easy to understand?  Armadillo1985 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The jargon tag was removed without an edit comment, and without discussing here. Kindly do not remove this tag until consensus is reached HERE that this issue has been resolved. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: I am currently adding much information concerning oats to this page. However a split page on oat sensitivity is already in the formative stages, after which information dealing with oat allergy and avenin sensitive enteropathy will be split off. A link to that page will be provided within the gluten sensitivity template. 
My plan is to keep the oat controversy here, and link out to that page. 
Pdeitiker (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oat sensitivity

message: Please add to this article:
(1) A clear section on symptoms of gluten sensitivity. (Or a statement of why it is inappropriate or impossible to provide such a section.)
(2) Clear information on development of the problem (etiology?). E.g., is gluten sensitivity always congenital/present from infancy, or can it develop later in life?
(If these are in the article and I missed them, please point me to them. Thanks.) -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional info needed: symptoms and development

message: What is the incidence and prevalence of the various forms of gluten sensitivity? --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence and prevalence 

message: Press release about a study which found a connection between wheat and diabetes. Seems to be the first of its kind. II | (t - c) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a press release. The connection between Type 1 diabetes and Coeliac disease is not new:
* Type 1 diabetes is genetically linked DR4-DQ8 and DR3-DQ2.5, Coeliac disease is linked to DQ2.5 and DQ8
* A study of dutch early onset case males revealed a sizable fraction of males with Coeliac disease also had type 1 diabetes.
* A study of type 1 diabetes found that a relatively large percent of early onset cases have anti-transglutaminase antibodies even though celiac disease was not evident in many cases. 
* A study of reactivity found that the GLb-1 protein of wheat, which shares some sequence similarity with the major antigen of peanuts elicited antibodies that were implicated in the destruction of the islet of langerhans cells, however glb-1 is not a prolamin, and is therefore not a gluten.
PB666 yap 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to diabetes 

message: This sentence needs to be updated: " [...] will be presented at the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission at the end of June 2008"
Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-date 

message: I have never seen odds ratios formatted like this. In fact, I'm not even sure that I'm properly interpreting them. Why not use an fraction or a simple decimal? This is even how the wiki on odds ratios does it Odds Ratio.
206.53.21.90 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on with the Odds Ratio tables? 

message: Apologies if I put this in the wrong place previously. I think this piece no longer reflects what people mean when they talk about "gluten sensitivity". It has in the past been used as an umbrella term for the full spectrum of conditions linked to gluten, but in the past few years has been used to refer to a specific pathology, distinct from coeliac disease and wheat allergy. 'Gluten-related disorders' is a better and now more accepted term for the wider spectrum of conditions. 
For clarity, this article should explain the emerging condition of gluten sensitivity, then perhaps move towards including much of the content here under a different article on gluten-related disorders? 
Chrismarritt (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: This article repeatedly cites a paper called "The Gluten-Free, Casein-Free Diet In Autism: Results of A Preliminary Double Blind Clinical Trial", suggesting that autism is a symptom of gluten sensitivity. The paper in question states clearly: "Data on autistic symptoms and urinary peptide levels were collected in the subjects’ homes over the 12 weeks that they were on the diet. Group data indicated no statistically significant findings"
It sound as though inferring that autism is caused by gluten sensitivity is a gross misrepresentation.
Here's the paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8575wx07436024k5/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.102.6 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism as a Symptom of Gluten Sensitivity 

message: Just to explain my edit a little further, the article used mixed variants of the word "c(o)eliac" and since it doesn't mention anything about using UK spelling, I've standardized the spelling of "coeliac" to "celiac", even though the Coeliac disease article uses the UK spelling. I tried to only do the "appropriate" ones, in other words, not those that are titles of books, quotations, etc., but if I goofed anywhere, or if we want to standardize on UK/international spelling, please feel free to correct them. I'm not picky on which one we use, just as long as it's standard throughout the article. – RobinHood70 talk 05:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celiac vs. coeliac 

message: It appears that the term 'gluten sensitivity' is used in at least two different senses throughout this article.  In one sense, it is an inclusive umbrella term that includes celiac disease, wheat allergy, and other conditions.  In another sense, it refers only to the 'other conditions'; that is, a syndrome of abnormal signs or symptoms after ingesting gluten in persons in whom celiac disease and wheat allergy have been ruled out.  
For example, under the section titled 'Separating forms of gluten sensitivity,' the first two sentences state--
     "Only rarely should gluten sensitivity be without cause. Generally the sensitivity can be split between celiac disease, 
      gluten sensitivity and wheat allergy."
It seems the first 'gluten sensitivity' and 'the sensitivity' are used in the inclusive sense and the second 'gluten sensitivity' is used in the exclusive sense.
Can we find a different term for one of these senses?  Since it seems that celiac disease and wheat allergy ARE forms of sensitivity to gluten, I would favor using 'gluten sensitivity' in the broader inclusive sense and perhaps using something like 'non-celiac, non-allergic gluten sensitivity' for the exclusive sense.  (Yes, that is awkward.  Someone else might have a more elegant alternative.)
Steveorwig (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity of 'Gluten sensitivity' 

message: "Sapone speculates that some form gluten sensitivity affects roughly 10% of the general population.[1]" 
I don't see why this speculation is worthy of support without review.  Who is Sapone and why is his speculation lead-worthy? Why is a primary source highlighted in the lead? Ultra Venia (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation in lead 

message: The lead to this article claims that schizophrenia is a symptom of gluten sensitivity and cites this paper; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471632 (in a list of papers - non of the others mention schizophrenia).  However that paper was investigating whether schizophrenia leads to gluten sensitivity, rather than whether gluten leads to schizophrenia.  I also note that none of the references provided to that sentence actually provide evidence for the other "non-intestinal" symptoms, and only one even mentions some of those (but didn't actually study whether those are legitimate symptoms or not).  --Owheelj (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: schizophrenia

message: I feel like there should be citations for things listed on this table -- what do people think? hackfish 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative pathophysiology: Citations?

message: Thee are some major problems with this article. I will be taking out anything not referenced to a proper source in one week from now. If that leaves it looking like a stub, I would find that preferable to its current state. One week from now is 5 February. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this off today. I am sure it still needs more trimming. It would be great if others could help out. --John (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished this for now. Could anyone tempted to add material to this article please remember that on an article like this we need the highest standard of sourcing; see WP:MEDRS? Thanks. --John (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

text: No idea if it's due to edits, but abbreviations are used rather copiously without prior explanation - GSE ("gluten-sensitive enteropathy" I guess, a phrase that occurs nowhere in the text), GFD ("gluten free diet", I guess?)  Donnx (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The toilet cleaner is here 

message: Anyone care to explain this section, Gluten sensitivity#Difference between idiopathic gluten sensitivity and celiac disease?  That section needs to be interpreted and written in much simpler language.  GB fan 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if not simpler, at least more coherent.  The title proposes that the text will be in large part about idiopathic GS, but the text itself seems to drift back and forth on whether it's about idiopathic, or that's just a rare corner case of gluten related enteropathy.  Likely a product of extensive editing from different points of view, the result is it's incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know this stuff. Donnx (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is now Gluten-related disorders#Difference between non-celiac gluten sensitivity and celiac disease and the critique still holds. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between idiopathic gluten sensitivity and celiac disease 

message: The wheat allergy article currently covers all forms of gluten allergy as a subset of wheat allergy; this article covers all forms of wheat allergy as gluten sensitivity.  I believe that both articles are incorrect: the gluten allergen also exists (in varying degrees) in all the members of the Triticeae tribe - i.e. in rye and barley as well as in wheat - and wheat has non-gluten allergens such as pollen.  Further, while the wheat, rye, and barley glutens are all seed storage proteins, people are only sensitive (vs. allergic) to two of the four types; and there are are other seed storage proteins in other grains (such as avenin in oats) to which some people are sensitive.  (Per the Mayo Clinic article on food allergy, a food intolerance (e.g. celiac disease) is a food sensitivity but not a food allergy - though an individual may be both sensitive and allergic to a food.  For example, a person may have celiac disease and also be allergic to wheat.)Penelope Gordon (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheat allergy vs. Gluten sensitivity 

message: Anyone who has experties in Digestive Enzymes, please do contribute this article or related sister articles so they will be more useful as a way of preventative medicine other than rediculous glutin free diet.  Also other known preventional measure should be added as well.  General public will surely appreciate it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.208.163.62 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of interest in this context is Coeliac disease#Research directions and its inline references, as well as a Discovery Medicine article of 2014 (). But at least for celiac disease, the currently recommended treatment is certainly the gluten-free diet. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digestive Enzymes 

message: I'm wondering if we should rename the article to 'Nonceliac gluten sensitivity' and rewrite it to talk specifically about this proposed condition. Currently the article is confusing and ambiguous - is it talking about gluten inolerance as an umbrella term covering celiac, or is it just talking about non-celiac intolerance? I think renaming it to only cover nonceliac sensitivity would make sense. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. II | (t - c) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Partly agree, but move rather than rename - I agree their should be an article discussing "non-coeliac gluten sensitivity", which is much of the contents of this article, but there also needs be an overview of gluten-related conditions which is this article's title and is shown in top table and bottom template listing the related articles. David Ruben  Talk  22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like a good idea. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (expanded from a redirect to an article) and Gluten-related disorders (moved from "gluten sensitivity"). --Chris Howard (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article? 

message: In the last 7 days, I have added large parts to the present article which deal specifically with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), stringently sourced with review articles. Picking up on the idea of David Ruben, I now intend to move those portions to reate a new article with that title, and then to add whatever may still be missing. Any comments before I set out? --Chris Howard (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: since we already have an article on celiac, why not just make this the non-celiac article? Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That had been my thinking when I started adding to the present article. The problem is that the article, the way it is currently set up, relates mainly to the umbrella term, also called gluten-related disorders, over all of: celiac disease (CD) and other related autoimmune disorders (see the grahics), wheat allergy (WA), and non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS, diagnosed by exclusion of the others). It's really a question of design choice: do we want an article for the umbrella term, or not? If the answer is no, then indeed the best is to simply move this article to the new name and make a drastic clean-up of the article; if the answer yes, then the creation of a new article is better. I have a slight preference for creating a new article, but either way would be fine by me. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a redirect Non-celiac gluten sensitivity that can be expanded as proposed by moving most of the content on NCGS generated since 23 December to the NCGS article, without a need to "move" the article as such, leaving the "Gluten sensitivity" article more clearly standing for the umbrella term (which might later be moved to "gluten-related disorders"). Should further discussion reveal this to be unsatisfactory, it can be undone. I am adding the "In use" template to the NCGS article for the moment. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it as intended, and have have somewhat re-structured "gluten sensivitity" and moved it to the umbrella term 'gluten-related disorders'. If someone could still look through the "gluten-related disorders" article for yet further clean-up, that would be helpful. The creation of the new article is done. --Chris Howard (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity" 

message: Given the news articles published today, the section should be updated to reflect that there is no such thing as non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Here's one article. The author of the original non-celiac gluten sensitivity study, Gibson, has retracted that view. There are now no studies to support its existence. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be referring to the academic literature, not a Business Insider article. A look at the abstract here of the first paper they refer to shows a more complicated result than Business Insider describes. I think we can reliably report that many people who describe themselves as gluten-intolerant are not, but that's not the same as saying that non-coeliac gluten intolerance does not exist. Anyway, let's review all the papers linked to by Business Insider rather than relying on their summary. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-celiac gluten sensitivity does not exist 

message: Hi. So, where is the citation for that sentence? Is it the citation in the following sentence? No evidence/explanation is given within the article. Also, Wikipedia articles need to avoid evaluative words like "should" directed at the reader. Wikipedia is not intended to prescribe correct or incorrect behavior. Wolfdog (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the "Gluten intolerance" section of that Oslo ref. You could maybe attribute that statement to Oslo if you like. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but do you agree that we could do better in rewording the sentence? I'd be happy to do it. For example, it could be phrased as "According to a Gut article, the use of the term 'gluten intolerance' is not recommended." It is the Oslo paper's suggestion, but on Wikipedia needs to be phrased in the form of a fact (rather than a prescription). 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that should be fine, but you should probably attribute it to the authors rather than the Journal (something with the word Oslo). I didn't do it because I couldn't think of the best attribution. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me know if the change I made to the lede seems appropriate. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten-related disorders 

message: I think there's a spelling error on the chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gluten-related_disorders.jpg - "Allergie", to the right, should be "Allergy" or "Allergic", not sure which. Do we seek to correct it through here, or through the Talk page on the chart file itself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ericksmd3839 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450