Moderately high intake of folic acid has a negative impact on mouse embryonic development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of neural tube defects has diminished considerably since the implementation of food fortification with folic acid (FA). However, the impact of excess FA intake, particularly during pregnancy, requires investigation. In a recent study, we reported that a diet supplemented with 20-fold higher FA than the recommended intake for rodents had adverse effects on embryonic mouse development at embryonic days (E)10.5 and 14.5. In this report, we examined developmental outcomes in E14.5 embryos after administering a diet supplemented with 10-fold higher FA than recommended to pregnant mice with and without a mild deficiency of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). METHODS: Pregnant mice with or without a deficiency in MTHFR were fed a control diet (recommended FA intake of 2 mg/kg diet for rodents) or an FA-supplemented diet (FASD; 10-fold higher than the recommended intake [20 mg/kg diet]). At E14.5, mice were examined for embryonic loss and growth retardation, and hearts were assessed for defects and for ventricular wall thickness. RESULTS: Maternal FA supplementation was associated with embryonic loss, embryonic delays, a higher incidence of ventricular septal defects, and thinner left and right ventricular walls, compared to mothers fed control diet. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that even moderately high levels of FA supplementation may adversely affect fetal mouse development. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the impact of high folate intake in pregnant women. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".