Folic Acid Supplementation in Pregnancy and the Risk of Pre-Eclampsia—A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective cohort study designed to assess the effect of folic acid supplementation in pregnancy on the risk of preeclampsia (PE) took place in Ottawa, ON and Kingston, ON, Canada, from September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2008. Pregnant women, less than 20 weeks gestational age were recruited and delivered in the Ottawa region and the Kingston General Hospital. Demographic characteristics of the study participants and the patterns of supplementation of folic acid were described and occurrence of PE between women with folic acid supplementation during pregnancy and women without were compared. Multiple logistic regression was used in the estimation of the independent effect of supplementation of folic acid. Additional analyses assessing the effect of low RBC and serum folate and dose-response relationship were performed. Analyses were performed in all study participants, and then in high risk and low risk sub-groups, respectively. A total of 7,669 participants were included in the final analysis. Ninety five percent of the study participants were taking folic acid supplementation in early second trimester. The rate of PE was lower in the supplementation group than in the no supplementation group, and the difference was statistically significant in high risk women. Similar patterns of associations were observed in analysis by RBC and serum folate levels and in dose-response analysis. Folic acid supplementation in pregnancy may reduce PE risk in pregnant women, especially in those women with increased risk of developing PE.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".