Pediatric Cancer Rates After Universal Folic Acid Flour Fortification In Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the introduction of mandatory Canadian folic acid flour fortification in mid-1997, the incidence of selected childhood cancers that declined in Ontario prior to and subsequent to this public policy initiative was examined. A population-based cohort study of all incident cases of childhood malignancy in Ontario between the years 1985 and 2006 was conducted. Participants were identified from a database provided by the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario and included children 0 to 4 years of age and 5 to 9 years of age who were diagnosed with cancer. Among children aged 0 to 4 years, the incidence rate of Wilms' tumor declined from 1.94 to 1.43 per 100,000 (incidence rate ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.95). No significant change was seen in the prefortification vs postfortification time periods for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, brain cancers, or embryonal cancers among the 0- to 4-year or 5- to 9-year age groups. There was an approximately 30% reduction in risk of Wilms' tumor following introduction of the initiative. This corroborates a recent case-control study from Germany. These data may also provide some reassurance that universal flour fortification does not heighten the risk of pediatric cancer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".