Comparing folic acid pharmacokinetics among women of childbearing age: single dose ingestion of 1.1 versus 5 MG folic acid.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A 2001 study suggested that supplementation with 5 mg folic acid, among women of childbearing age, is needed to render maximum protection against neural tube defects (NTD). No human study is presently available which examined the pharmacokinetics of 5 mg folic acid. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of ingesting a single dose of 5 mg versus 1.1 mg folic acid contained in 2 prenatal multivitamins (PregVit and PregVit-Folic 5), and to estimate its contribution to steady-state folate levels. METHOD: The pharmacokinetics of 1.1 mg folic acid was determined in a previously published study. The method was replicated among 6 healthy, non-pregnant women who were given 5 mg folic acid to ingest. Blood samples were drawn and serum folate concentrations were measured at various time points during 10 hours post-ingestion. Standard pharmacokinetic parameters were determined and compared with Student's t-test, when appropriate. RESULTS: The mean area under the curve (AUC) of 1.1 mg and 5 mg folic acid were 147.6 +/- 52.8 (ng/mL) x hr and 997.5 +/- 271.9 (ng/mL) x hr, respectively (p<0.0002). An approximate 5-fold difference was detected in the peak concentrations (Cmax) between the 2 groups (p<0.0005), alongside a slight difference in the times to peak (Tmax) (p=0.02). The estimated steady-state serum folate concentrations produced by 1.1 mg and 5 mg folic acid were 6.2 +/- 2.2 ng/mL and 41.6 +/- 11.3 ng/mL, respectively (p<0.0002), prior to its summation with initial (baseline) steady-state levels. CONCLUSION: Single dose administration between 1.1 mg and 5 mg folic acid demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics, with approximately a 5-fold difference between the 2 doses in serum folate contribution to steady-state levels, under ideal adherence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".