Effect of prenatal supplementation with docosahexanoic acid on infant development: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial in Mexico.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The omega‐3 fatty acid docosahexanoic acid (DHA) is deposited in the brain early in life and plays an important role in neural and visual function. Little is known however about the benefits of ingesting DHA supplements during pregnancy for infant development. We conducted a randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of 400 mg/day algal DHA (Martek) from week 20 of gestation through delivery (n=1094 pregnant women) and followed the offspring (n=973 live births). Child development was measured in 730 children (75% of birth cohort) using the Spanish version of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID)‐II at 18 mo of age; we calculated standardized psychomotor development (PDI) and mental development indices (MDI). PDI and MDI scores (mean ± S.D.) were 94.3 ± 10.7 and 93.0 ± 8.9 in the DHA group (n=365) and 95.2 ± 9.3 and 93.3 ± 9.8 in the placebo group (n=365), respectively. Intent to treat differences in PDI and MDI scores at 18 mo were 0.90 (95% CI: −0.55, 2.35; p=0.23) and 0.26 (95% CI: −1.10, 1.63; p=0.70), respectively. Prenatal supplementation with 400 mg algal DHA did not result in improved global development scores at 18 mo of age in a study population (Mexico) with low intakes of DHA. Follow‐up of the cohort is ongoing. Funding: NIH ( HD043099 ) and March of Dimes Foundation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".