Folate and colorectal cancer: An evidence‐based critical review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently available evidence from epidemiologic, animal, and intervention studies does not unequivocally support the role of folate, a water-soluble B vitamin and important cofactor in one-carbon transfer, in the development and progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, when the portfolio of evidence from these studies is analyzed critically, the overall conclusion supports the inverse association between folate status and CRC risk. It is becoming increasingly evident that folate possesses dual modulatory effects on colorectal carcinogenesis depending on the timing and dose of folate intervention. Folate deficiency has an inhibitory effect whereas folate supplementation has a promoting effect on the progression of established colorectal neoplasms. In contrast, folate deficiency in normal colorectal mucosa appears to predispose it to neoplastic transformation, and modest levels of folic acid supplementation suppress, whereas supraphysiologic supplemental doses enhance, the development of cancer in normal colorectal mucosa. Several potential mechanisms relating to the disruption of one-carbon transfer reactions exist to support the dual modulatory role of folate in colorectal carcinogenesis. Based on the lack of compelling supportive evidence and on the potential tumor-promoting effect, routine folic acid supplementation should not be recommended as a chemopreventive measure against CRC at present.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it