REDUCED ANEMIA AND IMPROVED IRON AND FOLATE STATUS BEFORE AND AFTER PREGNANCY AMONG FEMALES IN RURAL BANGLADESH IS RELATED TO LENGTH OF AND ADHERENCE TO PERICONCEPTIONAL IRON AND FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, Bangladesh's national strategy to reduce anemia included iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation to adolescent girls and newly married females. We conducted a double‐blinded RCT among married, nulliparous females to determine the impact of daily periconceptional IFA Sprinkles® versus folic acid (FA) Sprinkles® on iron and folate status. Biochemical indices were collected at baseline and after a positive urine pregnancy test (~15 wks gestation), or after 9 mo of supplementation among non‐pregnant females (NPF). Among 88 pregnant females (PF), there was a significant interaction between treatment group and length of supplementation for Hb (p=0.01) and anemia (p=0.02). After 183 study days, IFA improved Hb (127.0 vs 112.5 g/L) and reduced anemia (22.2% vs 66.7%) compared to FA. Group differences for iron status were not significant. Among NPF (n=151), IFA reduced anemia by 81.4% (95% CI: 0.04, 0.90, p=0.04) and ID by 91.8% (95% CI: 0.01, 0.68, p=0.02). Improved ferritin levels were only observed among females in the highest quartile of adherence. Periconceptional FA improved folate status in both groups. Mean ( ±SD) plasma folate increased from 18.0 ( ±7.0) to 33.8 ( ±23.8) nmol/L after 140.3 ( ±65.5) days of supplementation among PF and from 16.6 ( ±6.8) to 31.4 ( ±18.8) nmol/L after 277.4 ( ±5.2) days of supplementation among NPF. Among NPF, adherence was significantly associated with improved plasma folate levels (p<0.0001) and reduced folate deficiency (p=0.002). We conclude that periconceptional IFA supplementation with Sprinkles® significantly improves anemia and iron and folate status before and during pregnancy among females in rural Bangladesh.
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) | 0.003 | 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".