Folate intakes from diet and supplements may place certain Canadians at risk for folic acid toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the prevalence of folate inadequacy and toxicity based on usual intakes from food and supplements, as well as biomarkers of folate, secondary data analyses were performed using cross-sectional, nationally representative data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2 (n 32 776), as well as biomarker data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey, Cycles 1, 2 and 3 (n 15 754). On the basis of unfortified food sources, Canadians would struggle to consume adequate amounts of folate. When folate intakes from all food sources were considered, the overall prevalence of folate inadequacy was low across all age/sex groups, with the exception of females >70 years. However, >10 % of supplement users were above the tolerable upper intake level, increasing to almost 18 % when overage factors were accounted for. In addition, between 20 and 52 % of supplement users had elevated erythrocyte folate concentrations, depending on the cut-off used. Results from this study suggest that insufficient dietary intakes of folate in Canadians have been ameliorated because of the fortification policy, although folate inadequacy still exists across all age groups. However, supplement users appear to be at an increased risk of folic acid (FA) overconsumption as well as elevated erythrocyte folate. As such, the general population should be informed of the potential risks of FA overconsumption resulting from supplement use. This study suggests a need for more careful assessment of the risks and benefits of food fortification, particularly fortification above mandated levels, and FA supplement use in the general 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".