Rationale, design, methodology and sample characteristics for the Vietnam pre-conceptual micronutrient supplementation trial (PRECONCEPT): a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low birth weight and maternal anemia remain intractable problems in many developing countries. The adequacy of the current strategy of providing iron-folic acid (IFA) supplements only during pregnancy has been questioned given many women enter pregnancy with poor iron stores, the substantial micronutrient demand by maternal and fetal tissues, and programmatic issues related to timing and coverage of prenatal care. Weekly IFA supplementation for women of reproductive age (WRA) improves iron status and reduces the burden of anemia in the short term, but few studies have evaluated subsequent pregnancy and birth outcomes.The Preconcept trial aims to determine whether pre-pregnancy weekly IFA or multiple micronutrient (MM) supplementation will improve birth outcomes and maternal and infant iron status compared to the current practice of prenatal IFA supplementation only. This paper provides an overview of study design, methodology and sample characteristics from baseline survey data and key lessons learned. METHODS/DESIGN: We have recruited 5011 WRA in a double-blind stratified randomized controlled trial in rural Vietnam and randomly assigned them to receive weekly supplements containing either: 1) 2800 μg folic acid 2) 60 mg iron and 2800 μg folic acid or 3) MM. Women who become pregnant receive daily IFA, and are being followed through pregnancy, delivery, and up to three months post-partum. Study outcomes include birth outcomes and maternal and infant iron status. Data are being collected on household characteristics, maternal diet and mental health, anthropometry, infant feeding practices, morbidity and compliance. DISCUSSION: The study is timely and responds to the WHO Global Expert Consultation which identified the need to evaluate the long term benefits of weekly IFA and MM supplementation in WRA. Findings will generate new information to help guide policy and programs designed to reduce the burden of anemia in women and children and improve maternal and child health outcomes in resource poor settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01665378.
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 | 0.115 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
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".