Annual Trends in Use of Periconceptional Folic Acid and Birth Prevalence of Major Congenital Malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that periconceptional folic acid use could not only prevent neural tube defects but also other malformations. The objectives of this study were to assess trends in dispensed high dose periconceptional folic acid (5 mg) and birth prevalence of major congenital malformations. METHODS: The Quebec Pregnancy Registry, an administrative database with information on periconceptional prescribed medication and diagnostic codes was used to conduct this study. All pregnant women insured by the Quebec public drug plan between January 1(st) 1998 and December 31(st) 2008 were included. The exposure was defined as the use of high dose periconceptional folic acid 30 days before, and during the first 70 days of pregnancy. The outcome measured was the birth prevalence of major congenital malformations among live births. RESULTS: We identified 152,392 pregnancies and babies. The annual prevalence of high dose periconceptional folic acid use increased from 0.17% to 0.80% (p<0.05) during the study period; birth prevalence of congenital malformations increased by 15% (3.35% to 3.87%, p<0.05). More specifically, a 23% increase in the prevalence of cardiac malformation and 23% increase in musculoskeletal defects were observed, whereas there was no change in the prevalence of malformations of the nervous system. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was an increase in the use of periconceptional high dose folic acid over the past decade, there was no decrease in the prevalence of major congenital malformations. A limitation of this study is the absence of data on low dose folic acid use, available over the counter, in our administrative database.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".