Is untargeted iron supplementation harmful when iron deficiency is not the major cause of anaemia? Study protocol for a double-blind, randomised controlled trial among non-pregnant Cambodian women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The WHO recommends daily oral iron supplementation for 12 weeks in women and adolescents where anaemia prevalence is greater than 40%. However, if iron deficiency is not a major cause of anaemia, then, at best, untargeted iron supplementation is a waste of resources; at worst, it could cause harm. Further, different forms of iron with varying bioavailability may present greater risks of harm. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 12-week three-arm, double-blind, randomised controlled supplementation trial was conducted in Cambodia to determine if there is potential harm associated with untargeted iron supplementation. We will recruit and randomise 480 non-pregnant women (ages 18-45 years) to receive one of three interventions: 60 mg elemental iron as ferrous sulfate (the standard, commonly used form), 18 mg ferrous bisglycinate (a highly bioavailable iron amino acid chelate) or placebo. We will measure ferritin concentrations (to evaluate non-inferiority between the two forms of iron), as well as markers of potential harm in blood and stool (faecal calprotectin, gut pathogen abundance and DNA damage) at baseline and 12 weeks. Mixed-effects generalised linear models will be used to assess the effect of iron on ferritin concentration and markers of potential harm at 12 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board (H18-02610), the Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (H18-02610) and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Cambodia (273-NECHR). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented to stakeholders and policymakers globally and shared within participants' communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04017598).
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 | 0.042 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.018 |
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".