Factors associated with a positive intake of folic acid in the periconceptional period among Korean women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the factors associated with a positive intake of folic acid (FA) during the periconceptional period among Korean women. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study of demographic, obstetric and socio-economic data, history of periconceptional intake of FA and awareness of the benefits of FA supplementation in pregnancy were obtained and analysed using the chi2 test, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. SETTING: The Maternity School, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Seoul, South Korea, between October 2005 and March 2006. SUBJECTS: In total 1313 pregnant women participating in a two-day training course available every month. RESULTS: After excluding subjects with incomplete or inconsistent data, there were 1277 women included in the analysis. Participants were aged 29.4 (sd 2.9) years and had a mean gestational age of 27.9 (sd 7.1) weeks. Only 131 (10.3 %) women took FA during the periconceptional period. According to multiple logistic regression analyses, the adjusted OR for FA supplementation was 1.79 (95 % CI 1.10, 2.91) in women who had previous spontaneous abortions, 4.10 (95 % CI 2.43, 6.78) in women who planned their pregnancy and 6.63 (95 % CI 2.08, 21.12) in those who were aware of the protective effects of FA. CONCLUSIONS: Periconceptional intake of FA was more likely among Korean women with a history of previous spontaneous abortion, who planned their pregnancy or who were aware of the protective effects of FA during pregnancy. However, the proportion of women who took FA in the periconceptional period was low.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".