MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407158007 · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.001

Folic acid supplementation in children with sickle cell disease: a randomized double-blind noninferiority cross-over trial

2025· article· en· W4407158007 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brock A. Williams, Heather McCartney, Joel Singer, Angela M. Devlin, Suzanne Vercauteren, Ali Amid, John K. Wu, Crystal D Karakochuk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsRoyal Bank of CanadaBC Children's HospitalThrasher Research Fund
KeywordsCrossover studyDouble blindMedicinePediatricsCrossoverRandomized controlled trialFolic acidDiseaseInternal medicinePlaceboAlternative medicinePathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in Canada are routinely supplemented with folic acid to provide sufficient folate for the increased demands of erythropoiesis. However, with the mandatory folic acid fortification of refined grains and pharmacotherapies that extend the lifespan of sickled red blood cells (RBC), this clinical practice is in question. This study aims to determine the efficacy of folic acid supplementation by measuring the effect of 12 ± 1 wk of 1 mg/d folic acid, compared with placebo, on concentrations of RBC folate (primary outcome), serum folate, and 1-carbon-related metabolites, and clinical outcomes in children with SCD. In this double-blind randomized controlled noninferiority cross-over trial, 31 children with SCD, aged 2–19 y, were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1 with blocks of 4) to 1 mg/d folic acid, the current standard of care, or a placebo for 12 ± 1 wk. After a 12 ± 1 wk washout period, treatments were reversed. The mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] difference in endline RBC folate concentrations across treatments was –179 (–260, –99) nmol/L, with the lower boundary of the CI exceeding noninferiority but the upper boundary not ( P = 0.0001; modified intention-to-treat). There was no significant difference in the number of participants who had RBC folate deficiency after each treatment ( P = 0.059). No participants presented with serum folate deficiency (<7 nmol/L). There were no significant differences observed in 1-carbon metabolite concentrations (total homocysteine, S -adenosylhomocysteine, S -adenosylmethionine, vitamin B 12 , or methylmalonic acid), hematological measures, nor clinical outcomes (specifically acute pain episodes or megaloblastic changes) when individuals were supplemented with folic acid in comparison with placebo. Despite mandatory food fortification and advances in the medical treatment of SCD, it appears that some children with this condition may still benefit from daily folic acid supplementation. Whether this translates to improved clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04011345 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04011345 ).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207