Colon cancer in Chile before and after the start of the flour fortification program with folic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Folate depletion is associated with an increased risk of colorectal carcinogenesis. A temporal association between folic acid fortification of enriched cereal grains and an increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer in the USA and Canada has, however, been recently reported. AIM: To compare the rates of hospital discharges owing to colon cancer in Chile before and after the start of the mandatory flour fortification program with 220 microg of synthetic folic acid/100 g of wheat flour. METHODS: Cancer and cardiovascular hospital discharge rates were compared using rate ratios between two study periods, 1992-1996, before folic acid fortification and 2001-2004, after the flour fortification with folic acid was established in the country. Standard errors of the log rate ratio to derive confidence intervals, and to test the null hypothesis of no difference, were calculated. RESULTS: The highest rate ratio between the two periods was for colon cancer in the group aged 45-64 years (rate ratio: 2.6, confidence interval: 99% 2.93-2.58) and in the 65-79 years (rate ratio: 2.9, confidence interval: 99% 3.25-2.86). CONCLUSION: Our data provide new evidence that a folate fortification program could be associated with an additional risk of colon cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".