Folate intakes and knowledge of women of childbearing age : the status in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women capable of becoming pregnant are encouraged to increase their folate intake to reduce the risk of neural tube defects. This cross-sectional study estimated folate intake and knowledge in a sample of 148 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) living in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to determine folate knowledge and folate intake was assessed by a validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Folic acid fortification of bread and grain products increased folate intake by 104 + 68 ug synthetic folic acid (SFA)/day from 296 + 153 ug Dietary Folate Equivalents (DFEVday to 470 + 200 ug (DFE)/day (p < 0.001). Supplements contributed an average of 205 ± 388 ug SFA/day. Mean daily folate intake from food folate, fortified foods and supplementation was 812 + 710 ug DFE/day. Even though 85.7% of women were meeting the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR; 320 ug DFE/day) for folate, only 25.7% were meeting the recommendation (400 ug SFA/day) for women capable of becoming pregnant. Most women (94.6%) had heard of folate but only 25% were aware that folate can prevent birth defects. One quarter of women had good or very good knowledge of foods containing folate. The most common sources of information on folate were magazines/newspapers, doctors and television/radio. A lack of awareness of the importance of folic acid was the most common reason for choosing not to use folic acid supplements before pregnancy. Seventy-eight percent of women indicated that, with knowledge of the benefits of folic acid, they would be willing to take a supplement containing folic acid daily to reduce the risk of birth abnormalities. Strategies are required to increase folate intake among women and to promote the benefits of periconceptional folic acid supplementation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".