Pregnancy-induced changes in the long-term pharmacokinetics of 1.1 mg vs. 5 mg folic acid: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to compare steady-state gestational RBC and plasma folate concentrations in pregnant women supplementing daily with 1.1 mg (regular dose) vs. 5 mg (high dose) folic acid. Thirty-seven pregnant women, who were not previously taking folic acid, were enrolled in this open-label, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial after informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned either 1.1 or 5 mg of folic acid-containing prenatals until gestational age (g.a.) 30 weeks. Plasma and RBC folate concentrations were measured at baseline, g.a.6 weeks, g.a.12 weeks, and g.a.30 weeks using a chemiluminescent immunoassay. Results showed sustained significant increase in RBC folate in the 5 mg group between g.a.6 weeks and g.a.30 weeks (P < 0.001), and between g.a.12 weeks and g.a.30 weeks (P < 0.01), whereas a significant increase in RBC folate concentrations was observed in the 1.1 mg group only between g.a.12 weeks to g.a.30 weeks (P < 0.05). Plasma folate increased in both groups from baseline to g.a.6 weeks, and then decreased between g.a.6 weeks and g.a.30 weeks, but this was not statistically significant. Plasma concentrations at g.a.30 weeks in both groups were comparable to their respective baseline concentrations. Thus, physiological changes in pregnancy alter long-term folate pharmacokinetics. Despite supplementation over an extended period of time, steady-state does not seem to be achieved in either dose group within our study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".