Folic acid fortification and the birth prevalence of congenital heart defect cases in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital heart defects (CHDs) are the most common type of congenital anomaly. The precise etiology is unknown and the development of successful primary prevention strategies is challenging. Folic acid may have a protective role; however published results have been inconsistent. This study examines the impact of mandatory folic acid fortification (FAF) on the prevalence of CHDs. METHODS: CHD cases were ascertained using the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, Pediatric Cardiology Clinics, Pathology, and hospital records. The birth prevalence and odds ratios (OR) of isolated CHD cases (i.e., without noncardiac anomalies) were calculated comparing pre-FAF (1995-1997) with post-FAF (1999-2002). RESULTS: The prevalence of isolated CHD cases remained relatively unchanged when pre-FAF (9.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.79-9.92) was compared with post-FAF (9.41, 95% CI, 8.93-9.91). Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) decreased post-FAF (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94). Coarctation of the aorta contributed to this decline (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92). Atrial septal defect (ASD) (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.80) and ASD with ventricular septal defect (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.10) increased post-FAF. The remaining types of CHDs were unchanged. CONCLUSION: FAF alone does not have an impact on the prevalence of CHDs as a group and the majority of selected types of CHDs in Alberta. The decrease in LVOTO, particularly coarctation of the aorta, may be due to FAF or other environmental factors. The increase in ASD and ASD with ventricular septal defect may reflect an increase in diagnosis and ascertainment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".