Folic acid food fortification prevents inadequate folate intake among preschoolers from Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Folic acid food fortification has successfully reduced neural tube defect-affected pregnancies across Canada. The effect of this uncontrolled public health intervention on folate intake among Canadian children is, however, unknown. Our objectives were to determine folic acid intake from food fortification and whether fortification promoted adequate folate intakes, and to describe folic acid-fortified food usage among Ontario preschoolers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional data were used from the NutriSTEP validation project with preschoolers recruited using convenience sampling. Mean daily total folate and folic acid intakes were estimated from 3 d food records, which included multivitamin supplement use. Comparisons were made to Dietary Reference Intakes, accounting for and excluding fortificant folic acid, to determine the prevalence of inadequate and excessive intakes. SETTING: Canada. SUBJECTS: Two hundred and fifty-four preschoolers (aged 3-5 years). RESULTS: All participants (130 girls, 124 boys) ate folic acid-fortified foods and 30% (n 76) used folic acid-containing supplements. Mean (SE) fortificant folic acid intake was 83 (2) microg/d, which contributed 30% and 50% to total folate intake for supplement users and non-users, respectively. The prevalence of total folate intakes below the Estimated Average Requirement was <1%; however, excluding fortificant folic acid, the prevalence was 32%, 54% and 47% for 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds, respectively. The overall prevalence of folic acid (fortificant and supplemental) intakes above the Tolerable Upper Intake Level was 2% (7% among supplement users). CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid food fortification promotes dietary folate adequacy and did not appear to result in excessive folic acid intake unless folic acid-containing supplements were consumed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".