Systematic review of adverse health outcomes associated with high serum or red blood cell folate concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the relationship between reported high serum or red blood cell (RBC) folate status and adverse health outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline and EMBASE (to May 2013), with no limits by study type, country or population, to identify studies reporting high folate concentrations in association with adverse health outcomes. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Study quality was assessed. RESULTS: We included 51 articles, representing 46 studies and 71 847 participants. Quantiles were used by 96% of studies to identify high folate concentrations. Eighty-three percent of serum folate and 50% of RBC folate studies reported a high folate cutoff that corresponded with a clinically normal concentration. Increasing values of reported high folate concentration did not demonstrate a consistent association with risk of adverse health outcomes. Overall, reported high folate concentrations appeared to be associated with a decreased risk of adverse health outcomes, though substantial methodological heterogeneity precluded complex analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our interpretation was complicated by methodological variability. High folate cutoffs varied and often corresponded with normal or desirable blood concentrations. In general, a negative association appeared to exist between reported high folate status and adverse health outcomes. Consistent methods and definitions are needed to examine high folate status and ultimately inform public health interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".