Evidence for suboptimal use of periconceptional folic acid supplements globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically summarise the available evidence concerning the rate of folic acid supplement use pre- and periconceptionally, to identify those characteristics associated with low rates of use and to assess whether folic acid public awareness campaigns are associated with higher folic acid use. DESIGN: Systematic overview. SETTING: Survey studies. POPULATION: Women of reproductive age, most of whom were currently or recently pregnant. METHODS: Two investigators searched MEDLINE, Embase and Nutriotiongate databases between 1990 and 2003. Bibliographies of retrieved references were scanned for other relevant publications, and authors were contacted if necessary. Studies were included that evaluated the rate of folic acid supplement use either before conception or in early pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of preconceptional and/or periconceptional folic acid use, rate of planned pregnancy in each study, as well as significant characteristics differentiating non-users from users of folic acid, including the effect of folic acid awareness campaigns. RESULTS: A total of 52 studies were included. In 34 studies, reported preconceptional folic acid use varied from 0.9% to 50%. In 49 studies, the reported rate of periconceptional supplement use ranged from 0.5% to 52%. Significant predictors of reduced periconceptional folic acid use were a low level of formal education, immigrant status, young maternal age, lack of a partner and an unplanned pregnancy. Four studies examined the effect of mass media campaigns on periconceptional folic acid use; the reported rates increased significantly, by a factor of 1.7 to 7.2, but in no study was the post-campaign rate above 50%. CONCLUSIONS: In many countries, fewer than 50% of women take periconceptional folic acid supplements. Consideration should be given to the practical advantages of folic acid fortification of centrally processed foods, such as wheat, corn and rice flour, while further promoting vitamin tablet supplement use and planned pregnancy.
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 | 0.027 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".