MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282832215 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzac060.045

Intake of Foods That Could Be Fortified and of Nutrients That Could Potentially Contribute to Anemia Among Indian Women Before Fortification Implementation

2022· article· en· W4282832215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Lambert, Hanqi Luo, Manpreet Chadha, Daniel López de Romaña, Mandana Arabi, Helena Pachón

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFortificationRiboflavinNutrientFood fortificationFood scienceVitaminStaple foodDietary Reference IntakeFood composition dataWheat flourNiacinAnemiaFortified FoodVitamin CVitamin B12MicronutrientMedicineToxicologyEnvironmental healthBiologyPopulationAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1) To estimate intake of staple foods and condiments that could be fortified if 2018 fortification regulations released by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for oil, wheat flour, rice, salt, and milk were implemented effectively under social protection programs; and 2) To estimate intake of nutrients that could potentially contribute to anemia among women of reproductive age (WRA) (15–49 y) in India, prior to fortification implementation. We estimated WRA's mean food intake and intake of iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin, thiamine, zinc, and folate by integrating single-day 24-h dietary recall from the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNMB) Rural Survey 2009–2012 (n = 11,625) and our food composition table (FCT). This FCT was created using the 1989 and 2017 Indian FCTs, FCT for Bangladesh, and USDA's Food Data Central to estimate WRA's intake of nutrients that were not included in the original NNMB: copper, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, and vitamin E. On a daily basis prior to fortification, WRA consumed on average 10.5 (SD 11.6) g of oil, 78.9 (SD 133.8) g of wheat flour, 227.4 (SD 158.8) g of rice, 0.4 (SD 4.6) g of salt, and 55.4 (SD 79.7) g of milk. On a daily basis, 73.1%, 45.5%, 85.5%, 12.8%, and 59.5% of WRA consumed oil, wheat flour, rice, salt and milk, respectively. Prior to fortification, WRA consumed on average 12.3 (SD 7.4) mg of iron, 190.7 (SD 473.1) mcg of vitamin A, 37.8 (SD 36.8) mg of vitamin C, 0.7 (SD 0.3), mg of riboflavin, 1.1 (SD 0.5) mg of thiamine, 7.8 (SD 3.6) mg of zinc, 235.4 (SD 419.6) mcg of folate, 1.9 (SD 0.8) mg of copper, 1.3 (SD 3.3) mcg of vitamin B12, 1.1 (SD 0.5) mg of vitamin B6, and 3.3 (SD 3.5) mg of vitamin E. Staple food consumption suggests that wheat flour, rice, and milk are good fortification vehicles to reach WRA. The percentage of women consuming condiments suggests oil is a good fortification vehicle for WRA. However, WRA's intake of nutrients that could potentially contribute to anemia is varied. Our food composition table provides a unique opportunity to analyze nutrients in addition to those included in the NNMB. The NNMB data can be used to model the potential nutrient contribution of fortified foods among WRA in India. Global Affairs Canada.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in Nutrition→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→