A Comparison of Folic Acid Pharmacokinetics in Obese and Nonobese Women of Childbearing Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although maternal folate deficiency during the periconceptional period represents a major risk factor for neural tube defects, obesity has been recognized as an additional risk factor. Studies have identified an increased risk for neural tube defect-affected births among obese mothers even after adjusting for folic acid supplementation. However, although folic acid intake may have been at the recommended dose in these samples, blood folate concentrations were not monitored to ensure that protective levels were reached. Hence, there is a need to compare folic acid pharmacokinetics in obese and nonobese women of childbearing age. METHODS: Healthy obese (n=12) and nonobese (n=12) women of childbearing age volunteered to participate. Each obese participant was matched to a nonobese participant and assigned an equivalent dose of folic acid per kilogram body weight. Folic acid was orally administered after a 6-hour fast, and blood samples were taken over a 10-hour period to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: Area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) was found to be significantly higher in the obese group (P=0.008). Defining AUC as a function of dose per kilogram lean body weight (LBW) was found to be a stronger predictor than dose per kilogram total body weight (r=0.90 and 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This indicates that the body tightly controls systemic exposure to folic acid, with 90% of the variability in AUC controlled by the dose per kilogram LBW. Periconceptional supplementation recommendations may need to be adjusted to account for LBW differences in the obese population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".