MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789331190 · doi:10.1111/nyas.13593

Improving maternal folate status to prevent infant neural tube defects: working group conclusions and a framework for action

2018· article· en· W2789331190 on OpenAlexaff
Homero Martı́nez, Aliki P. Weakland, Lynn B. Bailey, Lorenzo D. Botto, Luz Maria De‐Regil, Kenneth H. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction planNeural tubeMedicinePsychological interventionAction (physics)Child mortalityMicronutrientEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineBusinessNursingPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As infectious disease control programs achieve increasing success, further reductions in child mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will require focused prevention strategies for birth defects and other noninfectious diseases. Neural tube defects (NTDs) can cause early death or lifelong disability. Preventing NTDs provides a feasible, significant opportunity to decrease the toll of birth defects and contribute to further reducing child mortality globally. The Micronutrient Forum convened a technical consultation on Folate Status in Women and Neural Tube Defects Prevention to develop a roadmap to inform and prioritize investments in NTD prevention in LMICs; help guide implementation efforts in terms of the feasibility of interventions and the potential for acceleration; and identify research and knowledge gaps. Here, we describe the impetus for and approach to the consultation and present the conclusions and a framework for developing a roadmap for action to accelerate NTD prevention in LMICs. The framework (1) provides options for action on folate status assessment; (2) outlines a way forward to develop and implement a time-bound global action plan for NTD prevention; and (3) identifies common impediments to NTD prevention, broad strategies to overcome or minimize these impediments, and basic building blocks necessary to accelerate action.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0090.016
Research integrity0.0240.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicFolate and B Vitamins Research→French-language works237,207→