MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125086411 · doi:10.1111/nyas.14565

Thiamine fortification strategies in low‐ and middle‐income settings: a review

2021· review· en· W3125086411 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcoholism and Thiamine Deficiency
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThiamineFortificationVitaminEnvironmental healthChemistryFood scienceMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) is an essential micronutrient in energy metabolism and cognitive and neurological health. Thiamine deficiency disorders (TDDs) have a range of clinical presentations that result in various morbidities and can be fatal if not promptly recognized and treated, especially in infants. To intervene, thiamine intakes by breastfeeding mothers and others at risk of thiamine deficiency should be increased to ensure adequate thiamine intake. Although thiamine fortification programs have a long history in high-income countries, there are few mandatory fortification programs to address TDDs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in the regions of greatest concern, South and Southeast Asia. This review highlights essential aspects for consideration in the development of a mandatory fortification program in LMICs, including an overview of the data required to model fortification dosing schemes, available thiamine fortificants, and potential fortification vehicles, as well as identifies current knowledge gaps.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.223 · 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