Reduced Folate Status is Common and Increases Disease Risk. It can be Corrected by Daily Ingestion of Supplements or Fortification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural folates are chemically unstable and poorly bioavailable in contrast to the chemical form, folic acid. Consequently most people, even those on good diets, have less than optimal nutrition with respect to this vitamin. Increased risks associated with deficiency include neural tube defects (NTDs) (proven), ischaemic heart disease and stroke (probable), certain cancers and decline in cognitive function (possible). Supplements of folic acid at the population reference intake (400 microg/d) completely normalizes all of these risks. Such levels are safe as judged by decades of use in wide sectors of the population. The main drawback of supplements is with respect to their effectiveness in preventing NTDs. They must be taken periconceptionally and before most women realise that they are pregnant. No more than one fifth of women take supplements effectively, largely due to the fact that over half of pregnancies are unplanned. This has led to the alternative of mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid in the USA and Canada. The level for such fortification is suboptimal for NTD prevention, because of fear of overexposure in the elderly. Thus even fortified communities require advice to take supplements for optimum NTD prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".