Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1998, in the countries where there is mandatory fortification of grain products with folic acid, folate deficiency has become very rare. Consequently, we decided to find out whether there is any justification for ordering folate assays for investigation of anemias. METHODS: We reviewed serum folate (SF) and red cell folate (RF) data at two teaching hospitals in Canada. At the Health Sciences Centre (HSC) the folate data for the year 2001 were analyzed and the medical records of those with low SF or low RF were reviewed. At St. Boniface General Hospital(SBGH)all folate data between January 1996 and Dec 31,2004 were analyzed and the medical records of all who had low RF between January 1,1999 and December 31,2004 were reviewed. RESULTS: In 2001, at HSC, 11 out of 2154(0.5%)SF were low(<7.0 nmol/L) and 4 out of 560 (0.7%) RF were low (<417 nmol/L). In no subject with low SF or RF could the anemia be attributed to folate deficiency. At SBGH during the 3-year-period of 1999-2001, 19 out of 991(1.9%) had low RF (<225 nmol/L) but in only 2 patients (0.2%) the low RF was in folate deficiency anemia range; but neither of them had anemia. CONCLUSION: In countries where there is mandatory fortification of grain products with folic acid, folate deficiency to the degree that could cause anemia is extremely rare. Ordering folate assays for investigation of anemias, in these countries, is waste of time and money. The result of these tests is more likely to mislead the physicians than to provide any useful information.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".