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 OpenAlexaff
Kyly C. Whitfield, Taryn J. Smith, Fabian Rohner, Frank T. Wieringa, Tim Green

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.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

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 designSystematic review
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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicAlcoholism and Thiamine DeficiencyFrench-language works237,207