Does prenatal micronutrient supplementation improve children's mental development? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although maternal nutrient status influences all aspects of fetal development including the brain, the impact of micronutrient supplementation on the baby's mental function is a topic of debate. This systematic review assesses the effect of single and multiple micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy on offspring mental development. METHODS: Eleven electronic literature databases were searched using key terms of various combinations and filter string terms. Reference lists of articles selected for review were scanned for citations fitting the same inclusion criteria. Each stage of the literature retrieval and review process was conducted independently by two reviewers. The CONSORT checklist was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: A total of 1316 articles were retrieved from the electronic database search, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The selected studies were randomized controlled trials published from 1983 to 2010, with high variance in sample size, intervention type, and outcome measures. The median CONSORT score was 15 (range 12 - 19). Due to inconsistent interventions and outcome measures among the studies, no conclusive evidence was found that enhancing the intrauterine environment through micronutrient supplementation was associated with child mental development in a number of dimensions. There was some evidence to support n-3 fatty acids or multi-micronutrients having some positive effect on mental development, but the evidence for single nutrients was much weaker. CONCLUSIONS: The study of children's mental outcomes as a function of prenatal supplementation is still relatively new, but the results of this systematic review suggest that further work with multiple micronutrients and/or n-3 fatty acids should be conducted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".