MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206243741 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-399632/v1

Folic Acid Fortification of Double Fortified Salt

2021· preprint· en· W4206243741 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwasegun Modupe, Juveria Siddiqui, Akhila Jonnalagadda, Levente L. Diósady

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsFortificationFolic acidChemistryIodineSalt (chemistry)MicronutrientFortified FoodFerrousFood scienceFood fortificationIodised saltMedicineOrganic chemistryInternal medicineIodine deficiency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The addition of folic acid to Double Fortified Salt aims to ameliorate iron, iodine, and folic acid deficiencies in vulnerable populations. Folic acid was added either to the iodine spray solution or to the iron premix used to prepare salt fortified with iron and iodine. When added through the solution, sodium carbonate was needed to dissolve folic acid and to adjust pH. Alternately, folic acid was added either to the iron core or sandwiched between the core and the TiO2 layer of the ferrous fumarate premix. Folic acid and iodine were stable in all three cases, retaining more than 70% of the added micronutrients after six months at 45 oC/ 60-70% RH. Adding folic acid to the premix's iron core is preferred as folic acid retention was slightly higher, and the added folic acid did not impact a yellow colour to the salt. Folic acid in this salt was stable in cooking and did not affect selected cooked foods' sensory properties. The technology is a cost-effective approach for simultaneously combating iron, iodine, and folic acid deficiencies.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicFolate and B Vitamins Research→French-language works237,207→