Preventive Effects of Folic Acid Supplementation on Adverse Maternal and Fetal Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is accumulating evidence regarding the additional protective effect of folic acid against adverse pregnancy outcomes other than neural tube defects, these effects have not been elucidated in detail. We evaluated whether folic acid supplementation is associated with favorable maternal and fetal outcomes. This was a secondary analysis of 215 pregnant women who were enrolled in our prior study. With additional data from telephone interviews regarding prenatal folic acid supplementation, existing demographic, maternal and fetal data were statistically analyzed. The concentration of folic acid in maternal blood was significantly higher following folic acid supplementation (24.6 ng/mL vs.11.8 ng/mL). In contrast, homocysteine level in maternal blood decreased with folic acid supplementation (5.5 µmol/mL vs. 6.8 µmol/mL). The rates of both preeclampsia (odds ratio [OR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.76) and small for gestational age (SGA; 9.2% vs. 20.0%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.99) were lower in the folic acid supplementation group than those in the control group. Other pregnancy outcomes had no association with folic acid supplementation. The findings indicate that folic acid supplementation may help to prevent preeclampsia and SGA. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the favorable effects of folic acid supplementation on pregnancy outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".