MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137215662 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.20161

Prevalence of trisomy 21 following folic acid food fortification

2003· article· en· W2137215662 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joel G. Ray, Chris Meier, Marian J. Vermeulen, David E.C. Cole, Philip Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersMedical Research CouncilOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsTrisomyFolic acidFortificationConfidence intervalMedicineFood fortificationObstetricsPediatricsBiologyInternal medicineFood scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymorphisms of maternal genes responsible for normal folate metabolism may be associated with an increased risk of fetal trisomy 21. By January 1998, most of Canada's flour was being fortified with folic acid. We investigated whether the prevalence of antenatally and postnatally detected trisomy 21 changed before and after folic acid food fortification. A total of 218,977 women underwent second trimester maternal serum screening for trisomy 21 in the 48 months before fortification and 117,986 women were screened in the 29 months after fortification. There were 375 identified cases of trisomy 21 before fortification (1.71 per 1,000), compared to 201 cases thereafter (1.70 per 1,000) for a crude prevalence ratio (PR) of 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.18). The associated risk of trisomy 21 did not change after adjustment for mean maternal age (adjusted PR 0.99 [95% CI 0.82-1.19]). Similarly, no significant decline in the monthly prevalence of trisomy 21 was observed using autoregressive integrated moving average time series analysis (P = 0.24). In conclusion, we failed to observe a decline in the occurrence of trisomy 21 following folic acid food fortification.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207