Comparable Performance Characteristics of Plasma Thiamine and Erythrocyte Thiamine Diphosphate in Response to Thiamine Fortification in Rural Cambodian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditionally, vitamin B1 status is assessed by a functional test measuring erythrocyte transketolase (ETK) activity or direct measurement of erythrocyte thiamine diphosphate (eThDP) concentration. However, such analyses are logistically challenging, and do not allow assessment of vitamin B1 status in plasma/serum samples stored in biobanks. Using a multiplex assay, we evaluated plasma concentrations of thiamine and thiamine monophosphate (TMP), as alternative, convenient measures of vitamin B1 status. Methods: We investigated the relationships between the established biomarker eThDP and plasma concentrations of thiamine and TMP, and compared the response of these thiamine forms to thiamine fortification using samples from 196 healthy Cambodian women (aged 18–45 years.). eThDP was measured by high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FLD) and plasma thiamine and TMP by high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results: Plasma thiamine and TMP correlated significantly with eThDP at baseline and study-end (p < 0.05). Among the fortification groups, the strongest response was observed for plasma thiamine (increased by 266%), while increases in plasma TMP (60%) and eThDP (53%) were comparable. Conclusions: Plasma thiamine and TMP correlated positively with eThDP, and all thiamine forms responded significantly to thiamine intervention. Measuring plasma concentrations of thiamine forms is advantageous due to convenient sample handling and capacity to develop low volume, high-throughput, multiplex assays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".