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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".