Periconceptional Folic Acid Supplementation and Infant Risk of Congenital Heart Defects in<scp>N</scp>orway 1999–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The birth prevalence of congenital heart defects (CHDs) has decreased in Canada and Europe. Recommended intake of folic acid in pregnancy is a suggestive risk-reducing factor for CHDs. We investigated the association between periconceptional intake of folic acid supplements and infant risk of CHDs. METHODS: Information on maternal intake of folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway 1999-2009 was updated with information on CHD diagnoses from national health registers and the Cardiovascular Diseases in Norway Project. The association between folic acid intake and infant risk of CHD was estimated as relative risk (RR) with binomial log linear regression. RESULTS: Among 517 784 non-chromosomal singleton births, 6200 children were identified with CHD and 1153 with severe CHD. For all births, 18.4% of the mothers initiated folic acid supplements before pregnancy and 31.6% during pregnancy. The adjusted RR for severe CHD was 0.99 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 1.13] comparing periconceptional intake of folic acid with no intake. Specifically, RR for conotruncal defects was 0.99 [95% CI 0.80, 1.22], atrioventricular septal defects 1.19 [95% CI 0.78, 1.81], left ventricular outflow tract obstructions 1.02 [95% CI 0.78, 1.32], and right ventricular outflow tract obstructions 0.97 [95% CI 0.72, 1.29]. Birth prevalence of septal defects was higher in the group exposed to folic acid supplements with RR 1.19 [95% CI 1.10, 1.30]. CONCLUSIONS: Periconceptional folic acid supplement use showed no association with severe CHDs in the newborn. An unexpected association with an increased risk of septal defects warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".