Talk:Gluten-related disorders

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mahnoorv.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not just too technical, misleading
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)

Audience
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)

This article is too technical (as mentioned below) and not easily digested by us lay-folk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.81.232 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey folken. I'm concerned that this page is too dense in its current state. I don't suggest removing any information, but perhaps some jargon could be better explained. I'm a molecular biology graduate student and I'm still having trouble getting through it. I realize that immunology is very complicated, and that it may be impossible to avoid jargon completely; but I'd also recommend that it be reduced. See also: Tone, particularly the parts on jargon and context. --aciel (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the page is dense it took me a few reads (and a bit of background reading) to understand it but please do not make the mistake of oversimplification. This is a complex issue and I have found this page and its associated links enormously helpful in understanding what is really at the core of this affliction I have. Thanks to the Authors. 203.58.120.11 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)NBelford


 * 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)

Wow! Great article. There is a lot of new information coming out in this field and this article does an incredible job of collecting it. This was a lot of work. The other commenters thoughts reflect the technical nature of this article. The article could use an introductory article (certainly more than a paragraph) to ease readers with less of a technical background into the article. Kd4ttc (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gluten sensitivity and Multiple Sclerosis
This article is so unreadable. It moves from kind of easy to read to lots of technical nomenclature. Also, what's with the blaming gluten on every disease. For example, gluten sensitivity has nothing to do with MS, yet the article makes it read like it's causal. At best, there's some sensitivity for patients with MS, but that's hardly definitive. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the article on multiple schlerosis follows a strand within the literature that associates the incidence of anti-gliadin antibodies with other neurological diseases. Personally, I question whether there is significance after the association with GSE has been elucidated, but that is my opinion. The purpose of this page is to _differentiate_ three forms of gluten or wheat sensitivity discussed either in the literature or by third party genetic typing groups. As these groups are frequently assigning risk of disease (GSE, IGS, or allergy) based on genetic typing and AGA. It is not to validate these claims, simply to parse the claims into groupings so that people do not confuse MS w/AGA as being celiac disease.


 * Note: One of the factors that is associated with MS, particularly stress to the nervous system. Gluten sensitivity in any of its forms can cause the types of stress that can cause crisis for MS patients. As for the readability issues, I have been quite busy for the last few months. I am getting back to editing the article to create an encyclopedic format where-ever possible. Currently working on the immunochemistry section. Wikilinks will be provided whereever possible, so that the reader can read on the technical words used to describe each type of sensitivity. Pdeitiker (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "'OBJECTIVE: We wanted to measure immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies to some common food antigens in MS and also IgG against gliadin and gluten. METHODS: The IgA antibodies were measured in serum against gluten, gliadin, lactoglobulin, lactalbumin, casein and ovalbumin in patients with MS and controls using ELISA technique. IgG was likewise measured for gluten and gliadin. RESULTS: Highly significant increases compared with controls were found for IgA and IgG antibodies against gliadin and gluten. IgA antibodies against casein were significantly increased. Anti-endomycium and anti-transglutaminase antibodies were negative.'"
 * "'Two atypical patients with a multiple sclerosis (MS)-like illness and evidence of occult celiac disease (CD) were managed by the authors. This prompted screening of a further 49 unselected MS cases for serologic evidence of CD. IgA anti-endomysial antibody was found in one case (2%). IgG anti-gliadin antibody was found in 12% of patients and 13% of blood donors. Anti-gliadin antibody (especially IgG isotype) can be a nonspecific finding.'"


 * I interpret this finding like many others that recently appear in the literature. There are factors in the western diet that allow the penetration of food peptides into systemic circulation. Omega-gliadin is one which is involved in anaphlaxis and urticaria. It can also be induced by Aspirin or NSAIDS, or other factors such as MSG, benzoate, or tartazine. The wiki page on idiopathic disease identifies that these findings could be due to GSE or Allergy, but there is also the possibility that gliadin directly interfers with neurologcal function. There is simply not enough data.Pdeitiker (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Recent investigations have documented that aspirin consumption, in place of exercise, also induces allergic symptoms. CASE SUMMARY: A 63-year-old man began low dose aspirin therapy on September 2005. Since January 2006, he had repeated episodes of generalized urticaria and lost consciousness while he was exercising after eating wheat. He was strongly positive for omega-5 gliadin in a cap-system fluorescent enzyme immunoassay. Therefore, a diagnosis of wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis was made. DISCUSSION: Patients with aspirin-provoked FDEIA have been reported previously as taking ordinary doses of aspirin for reducing pain, inflammation and fever. However, in our patient, low dose aspirin therapy for reducing cardiovascular risk possibility induced FDEIA." ,


 * There are other case findings for these effects of aspirin are published, aspirin appears to be a gluten sensitizer.

Oat sensitivity
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)

What's the relationship between GS and coeliac disease?
This article is not very clear on what gluten sensitivity is outside of coeliac disease. Besides dermatitis herp., what other diseases are there, really? Does idiopathic GS present itself with histological abnormalities? ImpIn | (t - c) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from these idiopathic diseases, there are an increasing number of studies that show gluten can cause damage to the GI without an adaptive response similar studies are showing the gliadin allergens can bypass the <500 Dalton cut off for tight junction permeability and enter into the region of the lamina proxima. There are lingering question about one person gets allergies and another gets CD. Typically the response on gets CD when one has the gene, and factors unknown.
 * The reason gluten sensitivity is unclear outside of celiac disease is that the studies that have claimed GS exists outside of CD are also not clear, or not well done, or lack statistical significance.
 * Specifically Gluten sensitivity is encompasses gluten sensitive enteropathy, it encompasses idiopathic disease, and it encompasses symptomology to gluten when GSE or allergic reactions cannot be, or have not been shown.Pdeitiker (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out under "Definition" below, I think this is an inherent problem with using this definition of gluten sensitivity. Much more accurate now would be to talk about coeliac disease as part of the spectrum of gluten related disorders. I disagree about the strength of research into gluten sensitivity as a separate pathology outside coeliac disease, but either way, the confusion does appear to lend weight to the growing recognition that a better umbrella term would be gluten related disorders. Chrismarritt (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Gluten Sensitivity is more like an allergy. Celiac disease is an autoimmune response to gluten (or a component of gluten). They have nothing to do with each other. Celiac disease is a clearly defined and well understood condition. GS or Gluten Intolerance, not so much. These conditions or diseases are not on the same spectrum. There is no plausible path for CS to become DC. This should be clarified. CarbShark (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional info needed: symptoms and development
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)

Totally agree: I came to this page wondering what the symptoms of this were and how common the various symptoms are. I didn't find an answer to either question. Jacob (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

i also agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - this would also be easier if we clarified what we mean by gluten sensitivity. Chrismarritt (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Connection to diabetes
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)


 * This is a press release. The connection between Type 1 diabetes and Coeliac disease is not new:

PB666 yap 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Out-of-date
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)

What is going on with the Odds Ratio tables?
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) Josh

Definition
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)
 * Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Autism as a Symptom of Gluten Sensitivity
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)

Agree completely. I looked at the claim in the article with skepticism, checked the reference...the paper refers only to treatment of gluten-sensitive autistic patients who *otherwise* have some indicator of gluten sensitivity by adhering to a gluten-free diet. In no way does this paper seem to claim that gluten sensitivity could claim autism as a "symptom". I am going to remove the autism reference in the article as the linked reference clearly does not support that claim. TonyHagale (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Celiac vs. coeliac
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)

Ambiguity of 'Gluten sensitivity'
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)

Actually, I now see that 'idiopathic gluten sensitivity' seems to be used in the narrower, exclusive sense as described above, though I am not sure if that exhausts the 'other conditions' category. Are there generally accepted syndromes of gluten sensitivity that have known causes, other than celiac disease and wheat allergy? If not, then I think 'idiopathic gluten sensitivity' would work for the exclusive sense (and it is much less clumsy than 'non-celiac etc.'), but it needs to be used more consistently throughout the article. (Part of the problem is that this whole area is dynamic and evolving, so some of the boundaries are inherently fuzzy and in flux at present.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveorwig (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The term is idiopathic gluten sensitivity meaning gluten sensitivity without a defined cause. once the cause is defined it becomes [whatever cause] gluten sensitivity.PB666 yap 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Speculation in lead
"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)

I agree. This whole article reads a little strangely. That weirdo side-bar, the rhetorical question at the opening of one of the sections. In general, it reads like it was written with an, if not an agenda, at least by someone(s) who know a lot about a single point of view on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.32.119 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anna Sapone, the lead in the study that is cited 11 times. Though it should be stated in the article. Danjw1 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I wrote most of the article some sections were markedly changed. I have not agenda with regard to idiopathic gluten sensitivity, an argument developed as a consequence of 1 english research group, so I created this page. I have not attended this page in quite some time, and I noticed alot of it is confusing and contradictory stuff (ihave not looked at the history so it might be mine?), I have tried to correct these. I do not know who Sapone is. Over the next few months I will go about adding stuff to the article, more research has been done including in the realm of immunochemisty.PB666 yap 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I should point out the reason for the questions. The primary reason is that the debate in the gluten-sensitive community, clearly substantial enough for a wiki article, but much of the debate lacks the standard criteria for broad scientific acceptance. There are several camps in the debate. First, gluten sensitivity = celiac disease, nothing more. Second gluten sensitivity has a broader scope, but is difficult to define (mainly because it has not been investigated). Third gluten sensitivity is expansive, almost as abundant as celiac disease, and includes all kinds of neuropathies, and other conditions. I suspect the last idea is 'overly ambitious', most GS should have a defined cause and not be idiopathic, therefore likely a diagnostic issue.PB666 yap 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

schizophrenia
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)

Comparative pathophysiology: Citations?
I feel like there should be citations for things listed on this table -- what do people think? hack fish 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackfish (talk • contribs)

The toilet cleaner is here
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Difference between idiopathic gluten sensitivity and celiac disease
Anyone care to explain this section, Gluten sensitivity? That section needs to be interpreted and written in much simpler language. GB fan 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * The section is now Gluten-related disorders and the critique still holds. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wheat allergy vs. Gluten sensitivity
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)

Digestive Enzymes
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)
 * Of interest in this context is Coeliac disease 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)

Rename article?
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)
 * Agreed. II  | (t - c) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, that sounds like a good idea. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

New article "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity"
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)
 * 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)
 * 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) P.S.: I've also notified those who have voiced a related idea on this Talk page. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity does not exist
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)
 * 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)

Citations to Italian Journal of medicine
The article seems to cite quite vivid claims to an article in the italian journal of medicine. Now I am not a physician, but to me this journal looks a little bit too dodgy (impact factors etc around 0) to be the sole source for claims such as

"However, regardless of the possible participation of FODMAPs in functional gastrointestinal symptoms in a subgroup of patients, it seems that gluten is responsible for the development of neurological symptoms in people with NGCS"

"a subgroup of NCGS patients can't improve by eating commercially available gluten-free products, wich are usually rich of preservatives and additives, because chemical additives (such as sulphites, glutamates, nitrates and benzoates) might have a role in evoking functional gastrointestinal symptoms of NCGS. Thus, this patients need a diet based on natural gluten-free foods."

Thus I edited that section.

the paper cited is

"Volta U, Caio G, Tovoli F, De Giorgio R (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: an emerging syndrome with many unsettled issues". Italian Journal of Medicine 8 (4): 225. doi:10.4081/itjm.2013.461. ISSN 1877-9352." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.159.17 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed
 * I have removed that less reliable source and reworded. I have used this other sources instead:
 * Elli L, Roncoroni L, Bardella MT (Jul 2015). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: Time for sifting the grain". World J Gastroenterol (Review) 21 (27): 8221–6. doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i27.8221. PMC 4507091..
 * Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, Bouma G, Calabrò A, Carroccio A, Castillejo G, Ciacci C, Cristofori F, Dolinsek J, Francavilla R, Elli L, Green P, Holtmeier W, Koehler P, Koletzko S, Meinhold C, Sanders D, Schumann M, Schuppan D, Ullrich R, Vécsei A, Volta U, Zevallos V, Sapone A, Fasano A (Sep 2013). "Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders". Nutrients 5 (10): 3839–53. doi:10.3390/nu5103839. PMC 3820047..
 * Lebwohl B, Ludvigsson JF, Green PH (Oct 2015). "Celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity". BMJ (Review) 5: 351:h4347. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4347. PMC 4596973..
 * Volta U, Caio G, Tovoli F, De Giorgio R (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: questions still to be answered despite increasing awareness". Cellular and Molecular Immunology (Review) 10 (5): 383–392. doi:10.1038/cmi.2013.28. ISSN 1672-7681. PMC 4003198.
 * Best regard. --BallenaBlanca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gluten-related disorders
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * OK, let me know if the change I made to the lede seems appropriate. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
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)

Risks of GFD
This article seems biased towards GFD being a good idea. It also seems to capitalize on not always making clear the difference between Celiac disease and the other disorders. At the minimum, there should be a section that shows that there are differing opinions in the relevant expert community. As the "risks" section read, it seemed like a full throated endorsement of a GFD for any reason. But there are real experts with real concerns.

I am attempting to make the risks section reflect the actual concerns of those who worry that this diet is being adopted for fad reasons. It has some redundant paragraphs, but I didn't want to make all the changes without discussing it here.

I previously cited Science Based Medicine. It is my understanding that this is a RS, but I get that others might not agree. So I'm sticking with my Mayo clinic source and Celiac Center guy. Please don't just hit "undo" but let's make this section read intelligibly for the lay undiagnosed person who is thinking about going GF without consulting a doc. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly the main problem is that when you created this section it was not placed in context, in the appropriate section. I have moved it.
 * We have to use sources that fulfill WP:MEDRS and not just WP:RS.
 * This is an article about diseases and the gluten-free diet is their treatment.
 * Saying things like "Proponents of gluten free diets" in this case is out of place and is original research.
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  00:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you erased referenced and contrasted information. You deleted "Nutritional complications can be prevented by a correct dietary education." I add that, as I said before, we are talking about a treatment . Can it cause side effects? Like all treatments. And in addition, in this case it is the only one available . The patients have no other option. A major reason to explain how to avoid possible deficiencies.
 * Saying that "Diagnostic tests (antibodies and duodenum biopsies) are more accurate when they have gluten in their diet" is not correct. If gluten is removed, both tests have no value at all. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  00:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is for a general audience, and this page will be read primarily by people who are considering a GFD the majority of them without the advice of a medical doctor. And while technically accurate, the effect is misleading.


 * My proposals:


 * 1. I made the heading Risks of "non-medical self-diagnosed" etc. In my opinion, you are writing this section to say "there are no downsides to GFD if you do it right." I think it should read to say "some experts think it's a bad idea to adopt a GFD without a diagnoses" which seems eminently supported by the sources. For instance this preliminary study. And I think this central disagreement is why you see my edits as being unfounded. Here is a small example of that disagreement being manifest in word choice: Would you be okay with me saying "proponents of adopting a GFD without diagnoses"?


 * 2. This needs to be written in more accessible English. For instance the difference between "inaccurate" and "no value" is totally lost on the lay person. And saying eating gluten "while being diagnosed" sounds like you munch on a bagel during the biopsy. And the word "mask" isn't used correctly here either. I would use a word like "hamper" "disrupt" "interfere with". Also, saying "grains are not essential in the human diet" is a truism and therefore reads like rhetoric. There are a lot of things that, in isolation are not essential in a human diet. In the real world, however, they are essential in a real diet. I would propose saying something like "it is possible to eat a balanced diet without gluten containing grains."


 * I would like to rewrite the section,but I don't want to start and edit war and I don't want to waste my time if you're going to insist on your phrasing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Starting a gluten-free diet without a medical evaluation and without a diagnosis is always discouraged, by all experts, not just "some experts" like you are proposing. Is what the guidelines say, as this one from the NICE, which is what the page currently says.
 * "proponents  'of adopting to GFD without diagnoses'  supported by what reference? Remember WP:NOR and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I will not repeat what I have said above about diet being a treatment.
 * 2. Okay. I have made some changes . "tests lose their usefulness if the person is already eating a gluten-free diet" is copied from coeliac disease. "replacing grains that contain gluten is easy from the nutritional point of view" is adjusted to the source. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  22:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this page need to be merged with "Gluten-sensitive_enteropathy"?
This page seems redundant with this page. Gluten-sensitive enteropathy.DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I am understanding. No need merging. It is a WP:REDIR.
 * Also, your proposal is not correct. The enteropathy only occurs in all cases of celiac disease, but may not appear in the rest of the gluten-related disorders. And in fact, it does not develop in most cases. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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