<i>Folate Intake of Older Adults</i>Before and After Fortification of Grain Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether fortification allowed older adults in the Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) Public Health area to obtain adequate amounts of food folate, and the proportion at risk of consuming more than the upper limit (UL) of folic acid (1,000 mcg). METHODS: Dietary intake of a convenience sample of 103 healthy, active older adults (age range: 65 to 95 years) was measured using three 24-hour recalls. Dietary folate pre- and post-fortification was estimated. RESULTS: Mean dietary folate increased from pre- to post-fortification, but 43.4% of women and 20% of men still consumed less than the Estimated Average Requirement of 320 mcg dietary folate equivalent. No intakes exceeded the UL. Participants whose diet met grain products and vegetable and fruit recommendations of Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating consumed significantly more folate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite fortification, some older adults in the KFL&A area may not be obtaining enough folate to meet their nutritional needs, and may be at risk for health problems associated with folate deficiency. However, without concomitant serum folate measurements, the proportion is not known. Dietitians need to continue promoting foods naturally rich in folate, along with folic acid-fortified foods. While none of the older adults consumed more than the UL, some could exceed this amount if folic acid supplements were added to a folic acid-rich diet.
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 | 0.001 | 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".