Verschillen in foliumzuurbeleid en prevalentie van neuralebuisdefecten in europa; aanbevelingen voor voedselverrijking in een EUROCAT-rapport. [Differences in folic-acid policy and the prevalence of neural-tube defects in Europe; recommendations for food fortification in a EUROCAT report]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: The European Registration Of Congenital Anomalies and Twins (EUROCAT), a network of 40 European registries of congenital anomalies, has published a special report on the prevention of neural-tube defects by, periconceptional folic-acid supplementation in Europe. This report reviews the progress made in 17 European countries since i99I in terms of developing and implementing public health policies to raise periconceptional folate status. Data on the prevalence of neural-tube defects in 1980-2000 were also analysed. - At the beginning of 2002, 10 of the 17 countries had an official government recommendation that women planning a pregnancy should take folic-acid supplementation daily. Only 7 countries implemented official health-education initiatives. - Despite the various measures taken to date, the majority of women in all countries surveyed are not taking periconceptional folic-acid supplements. Even in the Netherlands, where the percentage of planned pregnancies is estimated at 85%, only 36% of women take folic-acid supplements during the advised period. - Overall, the number of neural-tube defects has not decreased in Europe. A slight decrease was seen in those countries with an official policy regarding periconceptional folic-acid supplementation. - It is clear from the report that more effective prevention of neuraltube defects could be achieved with folic-acid fortification of staple foods; this approach has led to a reduction in the prevalence of neuraltube defects in the US and Canada. This approach can also prevent the majority of neural-tube defects in unplanned pregnancies and reduce the socioeconomic differences in prevalence
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".