MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169330596

Identifying women who might benefit from higher doses of folic acid in pregnancy.

2012· article· en· W2169330596 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Kennedy, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolic acidMedicinePregnancyNeural tubeFirst trimesterMalabsorptionNeural tube defectFolic acid supplementationObstetricsGestationEndocrinologyInternal medicineFetus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: One of my epileptic patients who takes carbamazepine is planning to become pregnant. She told me that Motherisk advised her to take 5 mg of folic acid daily until the end of the first trimester. Are there other women who need more than the regular dose of folic acid included in prenatal vitamins? ANSWER: Women who are at high risk of having babies with neural tube defects and who would benefit from higher doses of folic acid include those with certain folate-enzyme genotypes, previous pregnancies with neural tube defects, diabetes, malabsorption disorders, or obesity, or those who take antifolate medications or smoke. Such women should take 5 mg/d of folic acid for the 2 months before conception and during the first trimester.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207