Maternal nutrient intake and risks for transverse and longitudinal limb deficiencies: Data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between periconceptional intake of supplements containing folic acid with specific subtypes of limb deficiencies has been inconsistent. The objective was to investigate whether intake of nutrients involved in one-carbon metabolism (folate, vitamin B(6), vitamin B(12), riboflavin, choline, betaine, zinc, and methionine) through diet alone or in combination with a supplement containing folic acid influenced the risk for transverse limb deficiency (TLD) and longitudinal limb deficiency (LLD). METHODS: We analyzed 1997-2003 data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study and included 324 case infants with TLD, 158 case infants with LLD, and 4982 nonmalformed control infants. A food frequency questionnaire was used to estimate nutrient intakes. Use of supplements containing folic acid 1 month before through 2 months after conception was recorded. RESULTS: Use of a supplement containing folic acid was not associated with LLD or TLD. For nonsupplement users, within (1) the lowest quartile of dietary folate intake or vitamin B(6) intake, adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for LLD were, respectively, 3.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-13.78) and 4.36 (95% CI: 0.93-20.48); and (2) the lowest quartile for riboflavin intake, the aOR for TLD was 2.94 (95% CI: 1.04-8.32). For supplement users within the lowest quartile of folate intake or riboflavin intake, the aORs for TLD were, respectively, 1.52 (95% CI: 0.91-2.54) and 1.54 (95% CI: 1.00-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: TLD and LLD were not associated with supplement use, but TLD was associated with low intakes of riboflavin from diet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".