MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Folate Assays Are No Longer Useful Diagnostic Tools in Medical Practice.

2005· article· en· W2563655481 on OpenAlexaff
A. Majid Shojania, Kenneth von Kuster

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean corpuscular volumeMedicineMacrocytosisAnemiaMedical recordPediatricsGastroenterologyInternal medicineHematocrit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since 1999, due to mandatory fortification of grain products with folic acid, folate deficiency has become very rare. We elected to find out whether there is still any justification in ordering folate assays in medical practice. Methods: All the Red cell folates (RFA) at St. Boniface General Hospital (SBGH) for the period of January 1, 1996–Dec 31, 2001 and all of serum folates (SFA) and RFAs at Health Sciences Centre (HSC) for the period of January 1-December 31, 2001 were reviewed. The medical records of all patients who had low SFA or RFA were reviewed to find the cause of low folate results. At SBGH L. Casei microbiological assay and at HSC, a competitive binding assay of folates was used. Results: Among 2153 SFAs performed at HSC 10 (0.46%) were below normal. All 10 were anemic but their SFAs were not as low as those seen in folate deficiency anemia. Only one case had a high mean corpuscular volume (MCV). This patient had ethanol induced pancreatitis and his macrocytosis was considered to be due to ethanol abuse. Two patients had celiac disease. In the other seven patients there was no evidence of folate deficiency anemia and no explanation could be found from the review of their medical records as to why their SFAs were low. Among 560 RFAs performed at HSC, 4 patients (0.7%) had low RFAs. In one case, the low RFA was due to B12 deficiency. The second case was the same patient with ethanol induced pancreatitis who also had low SFA. The other two had celiac disease. AT SBGH, there was a progressive increase in mean RFA and a decrease in percentage of those with low RFA during each year in the period between 1996 and 2001. In 1996 the mean RFA was 509 nmol/L and 95 out of 511 (18.5%) had low RFA. During the 3 year period of 1999–2001, the mean RFA was 947 nmol/L and 19 out of 991(1.6%) RFAs were low. Of these 19 patients, 9 were ethanol abusers with alcoholic liver disease, 7 had celiac disease, two had low RFA due to severe B12 deficiency and one was an AIDS patient who was admitted because of extreme malnutrition and had a low RFA, a low serum B12 (SB12) and a low serum ferritin. Of 7 patients with celiac disease, only one had had a high MCV. Discussion: There are generally three reasons why physicians order folate assays. The most common reason is to detect folate deficiency as the cause of anemia. Our study shows that folate deficiency is now very rare. In none of the patients with low SFA or RFA could we attribute the anemia to folate deficiency. The second reason is for investigation of hyperhomocysteinemia. Since folate deficiency is now very rare and management of hyperhomocysteinemia is the same whether SFA or RFA are low or normal, having SFA or RFA result would not change the patient’s management. The third reason for ordering RFA is for screening for malabsorption syndrome. During 30 months period of July 1, 1999–December 31, 2001, the search of the Laboratory Information System at SBGH, revealed 29 patients with serological evidence of celiac disease, who also had SFA or RFA results. Of these 29, five had low SFAs and two had low RFAs. Conclusion: We find very little support for the need to order serum or red cell folate in medical practice. In those rare occasions, when folate deficiency is suspected by the patient’s history or laboratory findings, it is simpler and more economical to treat the patient with folic acid (as long as one makes sure the SB12 is normal) than ordering folate assays and waiting for the results that most likely going to be normal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.011

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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