Do We Need Another Randomized Controlled Trial of Folic Acid Alone?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a public health strategy to help prevent neural tube defect-affected pregnancies, enriched flour and pasta in the United States and Canada are being fortified with folic acid, and women are being advised to take supplementary folic acid around the time of pregnancy to ensure an adequate intake. But in spite of the recently published results of a public health campaign in China, the burden of proof that folic acid alone is responsible for a decreased risk of these birth defects rests on the results of a randomized controlled trial conducted by the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom. Supporting evidence comes primarily from studies that have shown a protective effect of multivitamins containing folic acid as one of many nutrients. Based on a striking and potentially hazardous type of non-compliance observed in an earlier study in which a participant took multiple vitamin doses simultaneously and a suggestion of similar incidents in the Medical Research Council study, we conclude that a further randomized controlled trial of the protective effect of folic acid alone may be necessary.
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 | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".