Meta analysis suggests that folic acid supplementation does not reduce risk of stroke, but there may be some benefit when given in combination with vitamins B6 and B12 and in primary prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: 1. Lee M, 2. Hong KS, 3. Chang SC, 4. et al . Efficacy of homocysteine-lowering therapy with folic Acid in stroke prevention: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2010;41:1205–12. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Hyperhomocysteinemia has been associated with premature atherosclerosis with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.1,–,3 Folate and cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12) are important regulators of the metabolism of homocysteine, and studies have shown an inverse relationship between levels of these factors and levels of homocysteine in the blood.4 5 On the basis of epidemiological studies, clinicians and scientists expected that homocysteine-lowering therapy (HLT) would reduce the incident risk of cardiovascular diseases (including stroke). As a result, HLT has been tested in several randomised clinical trials.6,–,9 In the present study, Lee and colleagues report the results of a meta-analysis including randomised, controlled trials assessing the efficacy of folic acid supplementation in the prevention of stroke. They used a strict inclusion criteria: (1) randomised, controlled study; (2) comparison of folic acid supplementation (with or without vitamins B6 and B12) with inactive or low-dose control; (3) the duration of the intervention was longer than 6 months; and (4) study reporting on the number of stroke events in both active … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DStroke%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252FSTROKEAHA.109.573410%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20413740%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=strokeaha&resid=41/6/1205&atom=%2Febmed%2F15%2F6%2F168.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".