MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019542915 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232125

Prevalence of iron deficiency in 62,685 women of seven race/ethnicity groups: The HEIRS Study

2020· article· en· W3019542915 on OpenAlexaffabout
James C. Barton, Howard W. Wiener, Ronald T. Acton, Paul C. Adams, John H. Eckfeldt, Victor R. Gordeuk, Emily Harris, Christine E. McLaren, Helen Harrison, Gordon D. McLaren, David M. Reboussin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsFanshawe CollegeLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsEthnic groupTransferrin saturationMedicineDemographyPacific islandersFerritinYoung adultCross-sectional studyRace (biology)GerontologySerum ferritinPopulationInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few cross-sectional studies report iron deficiency (ID) prevalence in women of different race/ethnicity and ages in US or Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated screening observations on women who participated between 2001-2003 in a cross-sectional, primary care-based sample of adults ages ≥25 y whose observations were complete: race/ethnicity; age; transferrin saturation; serum ferritin; and HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D alleles. We defined ID using a stringent criterion: combined transferrin saturation <10% and serum ferritin <33.7 pmol/L (<15 μg/L). We compared ID prevalence in women of different race/ethnicity subgrouped by age and determined associations of p.C282Y and p.H63D to ID overall, and to ID in women ages 25-44 y with or without self-reported pregnancy. RESULTS: These 62,685 women included 27,079 whites, 17,272 blacks, 8,566 Hispanics, 7,615 Asians, 449 Pacific Islanders, 441 Native Americans, and 1,263 participants of other race/ethnicity. Proportions of women with ID were higher in Hispanics and blacks than whites and Asians. Prevalence of ID was significantly greater in women ages 25-54 y of all race/ethnicity groups than women ages ≥55 y of corresponding race/ethnicity. In women ages ≥55 y, ID prevalence did not differ significantly across race/ethnicity. p.C282Y and p.H63D prevalence did not differ significantly in women with or without ID, regardless of race/ethnicity, age subgroup, or pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: ID prevalence was greater in Hispanic and black than white and Asian women ages 25-54 y. p.C282Y and p.H63D prevalence did not differ significantly in women with or without ID, regardless of race/ethnicity, age subgroup, or pregnancy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207