Daily oral vitamin B-12 with or without folic acid for 24 weeks did not improve cognitive function in elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eussen SJ, de Groot LC, Joosten LW, et al. Effect of oral vitamin B-12 with or without folic acid on cognitive function in older people with mild vitamin B-12 deficiency: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:361–70. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In elderly people with mild vitamin B-12 deficiency and no to moderate cognitive impairment, does daily oral vitamin B-12 with or without folic acid for 24 weeks improve cognitive function? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★☆☆☆ Neurology ★★★★★☆☆ Geriatrics ★★★★☆☆☆ ### ![Graphic][3] Design: randomised placebo controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: blinded (participants, clinicians, {data collectors, and data analysts}†).* ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: 24 weeks. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: 30 service flats and 24 care-facility homes in the Netherlands. ### ![Graphic][8] Patients: 195 elderly people ⩾70 years of age (mean age 82 y, 76% women) who lived in the community or in care-facility homes. Exclusion criteria were history of cobalamin deficiency, receipt of cobalamin or folic acid supplements, surgery or diseases of the stomach or small … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BClinical%2BNutrition%26rft.stitle%253DAm%2BJ%2BClin%2BNutr%26rft.issn%253D0002-9165%26rft.aulast%253DEussen%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BJ%26rft.volume%253D84%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D361%26rft.epage%253D370%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2Boral%2Bvitamin%2BB-12%2Bwith%2Bor%2Bwithout%2Bfolic%2Bacid%2Bon%2Bcognitive%2Bfunction%2Bin%2Bolder%2Bpeople%2Bwith%2Bmild%2Bvitamin%2BB-12%2Bdeficiency%253A%2Ba%2Brandomized%252C%2Bplacebo-controlled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16895884%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=ajcn&resid=84/2/361&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F1%2F18.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".