Absence of Association Between Serum Folate and Preeclampsia in Women Exposed to Food Fortification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate serum folate concentration early in pregnancy and any association with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in a population exposed to folic acid supplementation and food fortification. METHODS: This is a nested case-control study based on a prospective cohort of 7,929 pregnant women recruited in the Quebec City metropolitan area, including 214 participants who developed a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and 428 normotensive participants in the control group matched for parity, multiple pregnancy, smoking status, gestational, and maternal age at inclusion, and duration of blood sample storage. Serum folate levels were measured at a mean of 14 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: More than 98% of the participants took folic acid or multivitamins before the end of the first trimester. Mean serum folate levels were accordingly high and there were no differences between women who further developed a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy compared with women in the control group (60.1 nmol/L compared with 57.9 nmol/L; P=.51). The proportion of participants with serum folate below the 10th percentile (less than 22.3 nmol/L) of age-matched women in our outpatient population was similar between groups (P=.66) and no participant had levels generally defined as folate deficiency (less than 10 nmol/L). CONCLUSION: In a general cohort of pregnant women benefiting from a national policy of folic acid food fortification combined with a high adherence to folic acid supplementation, serum folate levels are high and do not differ between women who develop a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and women who remain normotensive. Further supplementation with higher doses is unlikely to be beneficial in such populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".