Does n-3 LCPUFA supplementation during pregnancy increase the IQ of children at school age? Follow-up of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite recommendations that pregnant women increase their docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake to support fetal brain development, a recent systematic review found a lack of high-quality data to support the long-term effects of DHA supplementation on children's neurodevelopment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will assess child neurodevelopment at 7 years of age in follow-up of a multicentre double-blind randomised controlled trial of DHA supplementation in pregnancy. In 2010-2012, n=2399 Australian women with a singleton pregnancy <21 weeks' gestation were randomised to receive 3 capsules daily containing a total dose of 800 mg DHA/day or a vegetable oil placebo until birth. N=726 children from Adelaide (all n=97 born preterm, random sample of n=630 born at term) were selected for neurodevelopmental follow-up and n=638 (preterm n=85) are still enrolled at 7 years of age. At the 7-year follow-up, a psychologist will assess the primary outcome, IQ, with the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition. Specific measures of executive functioning (Fruit Stroop and the Rey Complex Figure), attention (Test of Everyday Attention for Children), memory and learning (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test), language (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition) and basic educational skills (Wide Range Achievement Test, Fourth Edition) will also be administered. Caregivers will be asked to complete questionnaires measuring behaviour and executive functioning. Families, clinicians and research personnel are blinded to group assignment with the exception of families who requested unblinding prior to the follow-up. All analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principal. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All procedures will be approved by the relevant institutional ethics committees prior to start of the study. The results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journal publications and academic presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ACTRN12605000569606 and ACTRN12614000770662.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".