Folate and vitamin B<sub>12</sub>status in relation to cognitive impairment and anaemia in the setting of voluntary fortification in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about risks for older people with vitamin B12 deficiency have delayed the introduction of mandatory folic acid fortification in the UK. We examined the risks of anaemia and cognitive impairment in older people with low B12 and high folate status in the setting of voluntary fortification in the UK. Data were obtained from two cross-sectional studies (n 2403) conducted in Oxford city and Banbury in 1995 and 2003, respectively. Associations (OR and 95 % CI) of cognitive impairment and of anaemia with low B12 status (holotranscobalamin < 45 pmol/l) with or without high folate status (defined either as serum folate >30 nmol/l or >60 nmol/l) were estimated after adjustment for age, sex, smoking and study. Mean serum folate levels increased from 15.8 (sd 14.7) nmol/l in 1995 to 31.1 (sd 26.2) nmol/l in 2003. Serum folate levels were greater than 30 nmol/l in 9 % and greater than 60 nmol/l in 5 %. The association of cognitive impairment with low B12 status was unaffected by high v. low folate status (>30 nmol/l) (OR 1.50 (95 % CI 0.91, 2.46) v. 1.45 (95 % CI 1.19, 1.76)), respectively. The associations of cognitive impairment with low B12 status were also similar using the higher cut-off point of 60 nmol/l for folate status ((OR 2.46; 95 % CI 0.90, 6.71) v. (1.56; 95 % CI 1.30, 1.88)). There was no evidence of modification by high folate status of the associations of low B12 with anaemia or cognitive impairment in the setting of voluntary fortification, but periodic surveys are needed to monitor 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".