MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514995499 · doi:10.3390/nu8090538

Prevalence and Predictors of Low Vitamin B6 Status in Healthy Young Adult Women in Metro Vancouver

2016· article· en· W2514995499 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chia‐ling Ho, Teo Quay, Angela M. Devlin, Yvonne Lamers

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyYoung adultVitamin b6Environmental healthDemographyVitaminInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low periconceptional vitamin B6 (B6) status has been associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and early pregnancy loss. Given many pregnancies are unplanned; it is important for women to maintain an adequate B6 status throughout reproductive years. There is limited data on B6 status in Canadian women. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of B6 deficiency and predictors of B6 status in young adult women in Metro Vancouver. We included a convenience sample of young adult non-pregnant women (19-35 years; n = 202). Vitamin B6 status was determined using fasting plasma concentrations of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP). Mean (95% confidence interval) plasma PLP concentration was 61.0 (55.2, 67.3) nmol/L. The prevalence of B6 deficiency (plasma PLP < 20 nmol/L) was 1.5% and that of suboptimal B6 status (plasma PLP = 20-30 nmol/L) was 10.9%. Body mass index, South Asian ethnicity, relative dietary B6 intake, and the use of supplemental B6 were significant predictors of plasma PLP. The combined 12.4% prevalence of B6 deficiency and suboptimal status was lower than data reported in US populations and might be due to the high socioeconomic status of our sample. More research is warranted to determine B6 status in the general Canadian population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207