Impact of folic acid fortification of flour on neural tube defects: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the impact of folic acid fortification of flour on the prevalence of neural tube defects (NTD). DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature on MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, OvidSP and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) reporting the impact of folic acid fortification of flour on the prevalence of NTD in 2000-2011. Focusing on Santiago of Chile's birth defects registry (1999-2009) and the monitoring of flour fortification, we analysed the prevalence (NTD cases/10 000 births) pre and post flour fortification and the percentile distribution of folic acid content in flour (2005-2009). We explored the potential association between median folic acid in flour (mg/kg) and the prevalence of NTD. SETTING: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Iran, Jordan, South Africa and the USA. SUBJECTS: Live births and stillbirths. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies that met inclusion criteria were evaluated. Costa Rica showed a significant reduction in NTD (∼60 %). Prevalence in Chile decreased from 18·6 to 7·3/10 000 births from 1999 to 2007 and showed a slight increase to 8·5 in 2008-2009, possibly due to changes in fortification limits. When we related the prevalence of NTD with levels of flour fortification, the lowest prevalence was observed at a folic acid level of 1·5 mg/kg. CONCLUSIONS: Fortification of flour with folic acid has had a major impact on NTD in all countries where this has been reported. Chile showed a 55 % reduction in NTD prevalence between 1999 and 2009. There is a need to constantly monitor the levels of flour fortification to maximize benefits and prevent the potential risk of folic acid excess, moreover to be vigilant for any new adverse effects associated with excess.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".