MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of prenatal supplementation with docosahexanoic acid on infant development: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial in Mexico.

2010· article· en· W2302132541 on OpenAlexaff
Usha Ramakrishnan, Ann DiGirolamo, Schnaas Lourdes, Aryeh D. Stein, Meng Wang, Reynaldo Martorell, Lynnette M. Neufeld

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentMedicineCohortPsychomotor learningPlaceboPediatricsPopulationRandomized controlled trialPregnancyGestationPrenatal careChild developmentInternal medicineBiologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207