MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1900044360 · doi:10.1002/jcph.616

Folic acid supplementation for pregnant women and those planning pregnancy: 2015 update

2015· review· en· W1900044360 on OpenAlexaff
David Chitayat, Doreen Matsui, Yona Amitai, Deborah Kennedy, Sunita Vohra, Michael Rieder, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian College of Naturopathic MedicineHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolic acidMedicineFortificationPregnancyFolic acid supplementationFood fortificationFamily planningPopulationEnvironmental healthFood scienceInternal medicineChemistryResearch methodologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade critical new information has been published pertaining to folic acid supplementation in the prevention of neural tube defects (NTDs) and other folic acid-sensitive congenital malformations. These new data have important implications for women, their families, and health care professionals. We performed a review looking for the optimal dosage of folic acid that should be given to women of reproductive age who are planning or not avoiding conception to propose updated guidelines and thus help health care providers and patients. In addition to fortification of dietary staples with folic acid, women of reproductive age should supplement before conception with 0.4-1.0 mg of folic acid daily as part of their multivitamins. In the United States all enriched rice is also fortified with folic acid at 0.7 mg per pound of raw rice. However, this is not the case in many countries, and it has been estimated that only 1% of industrially milled rice is fortified with folic acid. In countries where rice is the main staple (eg, China), this does not allow effective folate fortification. Whereas the incidence of NTDs is around 1/1000 in the United States, it is 3- to 5-fold higher in Northern China and 3-fold higher in India. A recent population-based US study estimated that the reduction in NTD rates by folic acid is more modest than previously predicted. The potential of NTD prevention by folic acid is underutilized due to low adherence with folic acid supplementation, and calls for revising the policy of supplementation have been raised. We identified groups of women of reproductive age who may benefit from higher daily doses of folic acid, and this should be considered in current practice. These include women who have had previous pregnancies with NTDs, those who did not plan their pregnancy and hence did not supplement, and women with low intake or impaired adherence to daily folic acid supplementation. In addition, women with known genetic variations in the folate metabolic cycle, those exposed to medications with antifolate effects, smokers, diabetics, and the obese may benefit from higher doses of folic acid daily during the first trimester.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.343
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207