MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111519861 · doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00667

Food fortification technologies: Influence on iron, zinc and vitamin A bioavailability and potential implications on micronutrient deficiency in sub-Saharan Africa

2020· article· en· W3111519861 on OpenAlexafffund
Ikenna C. Ohanenye, Chijioke Emenike, Azza Mensi, Sergio Medina‐Godoy, Jian Jin, Tausif Ahmed, Xiaohong Sun, Chibuike C. Udenigwe

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific African · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMicronutrientMalnutritionFood fortificationMicronutrient deficiencyFortificationEnvironmental healthBiofortificationBioavailabilityVitaminIron deficiencyMedicineFood scienceBiologyAnemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micronutrient malnutrition, such as iron, zinc and vitamin A deficiencies, is a global health risk. Although distributed globally, over 98% of malnourished persons reside in developing regions. Specifically, sub-Saharan Africa accounts for more than half of the global micronutrient malnutrition cases. Food fortification is identified as one of the most effective strategies for tackling micronutrient deficiencies. However, the prohibitive cost of fortified foods, technological demands, and ethical concerns impede the widespread adoption and effectiveness of this strategy in sub-Saharan Africa. This review discusses the food fortification strategies for iron, zinc and vitamin A, and their impact on micronutrient bioavailability and prospects in eradicating micronutrient malnutrition, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific AfricanSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207