Folate, DNA methylation, and mouse models of breast tumorigenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, the food supply of the United States, Canada, and other countries has been fortified with folic acid to lower the incidence of neural tube defects (e.g., spina bifida, anencephaly). This fortification program has been highly successful in reducing both the prevalence of folate deficiency in the general population1,2 and the inci-dence of neural tube defects.3 The success of the fortifi-cation program,however, has created a situation of excess folic acid consumption by a significant percentage of the general population, the negative ramifications of which, if any, are as yet undetermined. Geometric mean serum folate levels havemore than doubled in the US population (from ~12 to ~30 nmol/L)4 and the prevalence of folic acid supplement users with intakes above the upper tolerable intake level (>1 mg folic acid/day) has increased from ~1 % to ~11%.5 Because folate deficiency and anti-folate drugs are known to retard or prevent the prolifera-tion of tumors, some have raised the question of whether excess folic acid in the food supply may promote malig-nant progression.6 Indeed, a recent analysis of data from the U.S. and Canada suggests that folic acid fortification may have increased the incidence of colorectal cancer by as much as 10%.7
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".