Exploring trajectories in dietary adequacy of the B vitamins folate, riboflavin, vitamins B<sub>6</sub>and B<sub>12</sub>, with advancing older age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining nutritional adequacy contributes to successful ageing. B vitamins involved in one-carbon metabolism regulation (folate, riboflavin, vitamins B6 and B12) are critical nutrients contributing to homocysteine and epigenetic regulation. Although cross-sectional B vitamin intake in ageing populations is characterised, longitudinal changes are infrequently reported. This systematic review explores age-related changes in dietary adequacy of folate, riboflavin, vitamins B6 and B12 in community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years at follow-up). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, databases (MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL) were systematically screened, yielding 1579 records; eight studies were included (n 3119 participants, 2–25 years of follow-up). Quality assessment (modified Newcastle–Ottawa quality scale) rated all of moderate–high quality. The estimated average requirement cut-point method estimated the baseline and follow-up population prevalence of dietary inadequacy. Riboflavin (seven studies, n 1953) inadequacy progressively increased with age; the prevalence of inadequacy increased from baseline by up to 22·6 and 9·3 % in males and females, respectively. Dietary folate adequacy (three studies, n 2321) improved in two studies (by up to 22·4 %), but the third showed increasing (8·1 %) inadequacy. Evidence was similarly limited (two studies, respectively) and inconsistent for vitamins B6 (n 559; −9·9 to 47·9 %) and B12 (n 1410; −4·6 to 7·2 %). This review emphasises the scarcity of evidence regarding micronutrient intake changes with age, highlighting the demand for improved reporting of longitudinal changes in nutrient intake that can better direct micronutrient recommendations for older adults. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104364).
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".