Folate status of the population in the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low folate concentrations are inversely associated with birth defects, including neural tube defects, congenital heart disease and oral clefts. Conversely, high folate concentrations may be associated with adverse outcomes, including increased risk of colorectal cancer among those with pre-existing neoplasms. The purpose of our study was to investigate the folate status of a nationally representative sample of Canadians, including a subset of women of childbearing age. METHODS: We examined red blood cell folate concentrations among members of the general population aged 6-79 years (n = 5248) and separately among women of childbearing age (15-45 yr, n = 1162), as recorded by the Canadian Health Measures Survey and measured by immunologic assay. We assessed the data for significant differences by age, sex and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Less than 1% of Canadians showed folate deficiency (red blood cell folate < 305 nmol/L) and 40% showed high folate concentrations (> 1360 nmol/L). Among women of childbearing age, 22% showed concentrations below those considered optimal for maximal neural tube defect-risk reduction (< 906 nmol/L). Significant differences by age and socio-economic status, but not sex, were evident in median red blood cell folate concentrations, although concentrations in all groups exceeded recommended levels. No differences by age or income were found among women of child-bearing age. INTERPRETATION: Folate deficiency is virtually nonexistent in the Canadian population, although high folate concentrations are evident. Additional research is needed to better understand the determinants of red blood cell folate among women of childbearing age who have concentrations below levels that are maximally protective against neural tube defects. Ongoing monitoring of the folate status of Canadians and the relationship between red blood cell folate and health outcomes is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".