Effect of folic acid supplementation on the progression of colorectal aberrant crypt foci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether or not folic acid supplementation promotes the progression of colorectal preneoplastic lesions to cancer is an important public health issue, given mandatory fortification and widespread supplemental use of folic acid in North America. We investigated the effect of folic acid supplementation on the progression of aberrant crypt foci (ACF), the earliest precursor of colorectal cancer. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 152) were placed on a control diet (2 mg folic acid/kg diet) at weaning and ACF were induced by azoxymethane. Six weeks post-ACF induction, rats were randomized to receive 0, 2, 5 or 8 mg folic acid/kg diet. At 34 weeks of age, rats were killed, and colorectal tumor parameters, plasma folate and homocysteine (a sensitive inverse indicator of tissue folate status) concentrations and rectal epithelial proliferation were determined. Although the number of ACF increased as dietary folic acid levels increased (P = 0.015), the incidence of colorectal tumors did not differ significantly among the four dietary groups. However, tumor multiplicity was positively correlated with dietary folic acid levels (r = 0.32; P = 0.002) and inversely with plasma homocysteine concentrations (r = -0.32; P = 0.005). Tumor burden was positively correlated with dietary folic acid levels (r = 0.35; P = 0.001) and plasma folate concentrations (r = 0.33; P = 0.008) and inversely with plasma homocysteine concentrations (r = -0.42; P < 0.001). Rectal epithelial proliferation was positively correlated with dietary folic acid levels (r = 0.39; P < 0.001) and plasma folate concentrations (r = 0.34; P < 0.001) and inversely with plasma homocysteine concentrations (r = -0.37; P < 0.001). Our data suggest that folic acid supplementation may promote the progression of ACF to colorectal tumors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".