Referee report. For: Safe and effective delivery of supplemental iron to healthy older adults: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial protocol of the Safe Iron Study [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forms of iron currently available to correct iron deficiency have adverse effects, including infectious diarrhea, increased susceptibility to malaria, inflammation and detrimental changes to the gut microbiome. These adverse effects limit their use such that the growing burden of iron deficiency has not abated in recent decades. Here, we summarize the protocol of the “Safe Iron Study”, the first clinical study examining the safety and efficacy of novel forms of iron in healthy, iron-replete adults. The Safe Iron Study is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Boston, MA, USA. This study compares ferrous sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO 4 ·H 2 O) with two novel forms of iron supplements (iron hydroxide adipate tartrate (IHAT) and organic fungal iron metabolite (Aspiron™ Natural Koji Iron)). In Phase I, we will compare each source of iron administrated at a low dose (60 mg Fe/day). We will also determine the effect of FeSO 4 co-administrated with a multiple micronutrient powder and weekly administration of FeSO 4 . The forms of iron found to produce no adverse effects, or adverse effects no greater than FeSO 4 in Phase I, Phase II will evaluate a higher, i.e., a therapeutic dose (120 mg Fe/day). The primary outcomes of this study include ex vivo malaria ( Plasmodium falciparum ) infectivity of host erythrocytes, ex vivo bacterial proliferation (of selected species) in presence of host plasma and intestinal inflammation assessed by fecal calprotectin. This study will test the hypotheses that the novel forms of iron, administered at equivalent doses to FeSO 4 , will produce similar increases in iron status in iron-replete subjects, yet lower increases in ex vivo malaria infectivity, ex vivo bacterial proliferation, gut inflammation. Ultimately, this study seeks to contribute to development of safe and effective forms of supplemental iron to address the global burden of iron deficiency and anemia. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03212677 ; registered: 11 July 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.455 | 0.129 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".