Colorectal Adenomas in a Randomized Folate Trial: The Role of Baseline Dietary and Circulating Folate Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aspirin/Folate Polyp Prevention Study is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of aspirin use and folic acid supplementation and incidence of colorectal adenomas in individuals with a history of these lesions. The trial showed that folic acid supplementation does not prevent the occurrence of new adenomas and may increase risk. We extend these results by investigating whether the effect of folic acid treatment differed by baseline dietary and circulating folate levels. Diet and supplement use were ascertained at baseline through a food-frequency questionnaire; a blood sample was used to determine plasma and RBC folate levels. Individuals were followed for 3 years (first follow-up) and subsequently for an additional 3 to 5 years (second follow up). We used generalized linear regression to estimate risk ratios and 95% confidence limits as measures of association. There was little evidence that baseline dietary and total folate intake, and plasma and RBC folate modified the association between folic acid treatment and risk of any adenomas or advanced lesions. However, there was a protective association of the highest tertile of dietary and total intake as well as circulating folate with risk of any adenomas among those in the placebo group but no association among individuals in the folic acid group. Our findings support the idea that although moderate doses of folate may be protective compared with deficiency, at some point of sufficiency, supplementation provides no additional benefit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".