Factors associated with not using folic acid supplements preconceptionally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neural tube defects are among the most common birth defects worldwide. Folic acid intake from one month before to three months after conception reduces the likelihood of neural tube defects by at least 50%. Since 1995, several campaigns have been organised in the Netherlands which resulted in 51% of pregnant women using folic acid supplements during the entire recommended period in the northern part of the Netherlands in 2005. Our research question was to gain insight into the current prevalence and factors associated with inadequate pregnancy-related use of folic acid supplements. DESIGN: Data from the DELIVER study were used, which is a population-based cohort study. SETTING: Twenty midwifery practices across the Netherlands in 2009 and 2010. SUBJECTS: In total 5975 pregnant women completed a questionnaire covering items on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, including folic acid intake. RESULTS: Of our study population, 55·5% (3318/5975) used folic acid supplements before conception. Several sociodemographic and lifestyle factors were associated with no preconception use of folic acid, of which non-Western ethnicity and not having a partner had the largest effect size. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, the folic acid intake before conception is suboptimal and has not improved over recent years. Fortification of staple foods with folic acid should be reconsidered as it would provide a more effective means of ensuring an adequate intake, especially for those groups of women who are unlikely to plan their pregnancies or to receive or respond to health promotion messages.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".