Adequacy of Niacin, Folate, and Vitamin B<sub>12</sub> Intakes from Foods: Among Newfoundland and Labrador Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adequacy of intake for niacin, folate, and vitamin B12 from food was estimated in an adult population in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Also considered was whether study findings support current Canadian food fortification policies. METHODS: Four hundred randomly selected adult NL residents were surveyed by telephone. Secondary analysis was performed on two 24-hour food recalls for each participant. Mean daily intakes of niacin, folate, and vitamin B12 were estimated from foods only and compared by sex/age subgroup. Adequacy of intakes was estimated. Contributions of folate by ready-to-eat cereal and bread products were also estimated. RESULTS: Intakes of all three nutrients were higher in men. In comparison with recommendations, daily niacin intakes were as follows: excessive for 21.9% of all participants (and for 56.8% of men aged 28 to 54), within the recommended range for 73.6%, and less than adequate for 4.5%. In comparison with recommendations, daily folate intakes were as follows: within the recommended range for 18.1% of participants and less than adequate for 81.9%. In comparison with recommendations, daily vitamin B12 intakes were less than adequate for 36.3% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: More than 20% of those surveyed were consuming, from food alone, niacin at levels above the maximum recommended. Food fortification policies pertaining to niacin should be revisited. In addition, despite fortification, NL adults may be consuming inadequate amounts of folate from foods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".