Vitamin B12 status in infancy and the effect of a vitamin B12 injection in infants with subclinical vitamin B12 deficiency: study protocol for a register-based randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is crucial for optimal child development and growth, yet deficiency is common worldwide. The aim of this study is twofold; (1) to describe vitamin B12 status and the status of other micronutrients in Norwegian infants, and (2) in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), investigate the effect of vitamin B12 supplementation on neurodevelopment in infants with subclinical vitamin B12 deficiency. \n\nMethods and analysis: Infant blood samples, collected at public healthcare clinics, are analysed for plasma cobalamin levels. Infants with plasma cobalamin <148 pmol/L are immediately treated with hydroxocobalamin and excluded from the RCT. Remaining infants (cobalamin ≥148 pmol/L) are randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either a screening or a control group. In the screening group, baseline samples are immediately analysed for total homocysteine (tHcy), while in the control group, the baseline samples will be analysed after 12 months. Screening group infants with plasma tHcy >6.5 µmol/L, are given an intramuscular injection of hydroxocobalamin (400 µg). The primary outcomes are cognitive, language and motor development assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development at 12 months of age. \n\nEthics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (ref: 186505). Investigators who meet the Vancouver requirements will be eligible for authorship and be responsible for dissemination of study findings. Results will extend current knowledge on consequences of subclinical vitamin B12 deficiency during infancy and may inform future infant feeding recommendations.
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 | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.012 |
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".