P1-117 Determinants of folate concentration in Canadian women of childbearing age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives One-fifth of Canadian women of childbearing age have a red blood cell (RBC) folate below concentrations considered optimal for maximal neural tube defect risk reduction (<906 nmol/l). This study explored the determinants of RBC folate concentrations ≥906 nmol/l Canadian women. Methods RBC folate concentrations from the nationally representative Canadian Health Measures Survey were assessed in women aged 15 to 45 years (N=1162). The population was described using frequencies and percentages. Sociodemographic, behavioural and clinical determinants of concentrations ≥906 nmol/l were examined using univariate and separate multiple logistic regression models controlling for age and household income. Results More women with folate concentrations ≥906 nmol/l were evident in higher age groups (15 to 19 years (70.0%), 20 to 39 years (79.6%), 40 to 45 years (80.8%)) and income quartiles (74.7% (Q1), 76.8% (Q2), 80.2% (Q3), 86.3% (Q4)). Folic acid containing supplement users had a higher prevalence of concentrations ≥906 nmol/l (87.9%) than non- users (75.2%). Prevalence of concentrations ≥906 nmol/l rose with higher intake of fruit/vegetables (< once per day (64.7%), 1–2 times per day (74.2%) and >3 times per day (82.9%)) and grain products (< once per day (67.7%), 1–2 times per day (80.5%), >3 times per day (77.6%)). Detailed regression analysis results will be presented at the conference. Interpretation These results will inform nutrition policies, particularly those related to folic acid fortification of select grains and preconception/prenatal folic acid supplementation recommendations for women of childbearing age. This will ultimately contribute to improving the health of Canadians and optimising infant health.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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, 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".