Prävention von Neuralrohrdefekten: Länderpolitiken zur Folsäureanreicherung und -supplementierung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The USA and Canada had already started an obligatory food fortification with folic acid in 1998; In 2009, Australia and New Zealand also started to do so. METHODS: A survey was carried out among members of The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC). RESULTS: Most of the European countries go along with the recommendation of 200 μg folic acid (or 400 μg folic acid equivalents) for adults and 300 μg (600 μg) for pregnant women. To prevent neural tube defects, an additional supplementation of 0,4 mg folic acid is recommended for women before conception. So far, none of the European countries has implemented an obligatory folic acid enrichment of grain or other food, but this step is under discussion. CONCLUSION: In a European market with free trading of goods it is of utmost importance that especially those (socially deprived) women in most need of folic acid, are reached. A common European decision for/against fortification should be considered. Public Health ethics demand not only good evidence for the benefit, but also a good estimation of the (potential) risks. Due to a paucity of good risk estimation, no European country has plans to decide in favour of an obligatory fortification on its own.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".