Folate, vitamin B<sub>12</sub>, and vitamin B<sub>6</sub>status of a group of high socioeconomic status women in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Folic acid supplementation and food fortification policies have improved folate status in North American women of child bearing age. Recent studies have reported the possible inadequacy of vitamin B12 and B6 in the etiology of neural tube defects in folate-fortified populations. The aims of this study were to describe folate status and its relationship to supplementation and to assess vitamin B12 and B6 status in a cohort of pregnant women. Supplement intake data were collected in each trimester from the first cohort (n = 599) of the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) study. Red blood cell folate (RBCF) and plasma folate, holotranscobalamin, and pyridoxal 5-phosphate were measured. Overt folate deficiency was rare (3%) but 24% of women in their first trimester had suboptimal RBCF concentration (<906 nmol·L(-1)). The proportion of the cohort in this category declined substantially in second (9%) and third (7%) trimesters. High RBCF (>1360 nmol·L(-1)) was observed in approximately half of the women during each pregnancy trimester. Vitamin B12 and B6 deficiencies were rare (<1% of the cohort). Women consuming folic acid supplements above the upper level had significantly higher RBCF and plasma folate concentrations. In conclusion, the prevalence of vitamin B12 and B6 deficiency was very low. A quarter of the women had suboptimal folate status in the first trimester of pregnancy and over half the women had abnormally high RBCF, suggesting that supplementation during pregnancy is not appropriate in a cohort of women considered to be healthy and a low risk for nutritional deficiencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".