Concordance between periconceptional folic acid supplementation and Canadian Clinical Guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) introduced new guidelines on periconceptional folic acid supplementation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the concordance between the SOGC guidelines and actual vitamin/folic acid supplementation, and to identify maternal determinants of concordant folic acid use.MethodsFrom May to July 2010, pregnant women attending the outpatient clinic at CHU Ste-Justine in Montreal were surveyed to assess use of folic acid. Data on socio-demographic factors, lifestyles, family and personal medical history, and periconceptional folic acid supplementation were collected using a self-administrated questionnaire. Concordance between maternal reported intake of folic acid and SOGC guidelines was estimated accounting for pregnancy history, comorbidities, and lifestyles. RESULTS: A total of 361 eligible women gave informed consent; of these, 97 (27%) had periconceptional folic acid supplementation intake that was concordant with guidelines. Women with no personal history of neural tube defects (NTDs) were the most concordant with guidelines (36%), followed by women with a previous child with NTD (26%), and women with health risk factors for NTDs (18%). Women who smoked and drank alcohol had the lowest concordance with guidelines (4%). Women with planned pregnancies and higher income were more likely to be concordant with guidelines; whereas, smokers, alcohol and recreational drug user and women with health risk for NTDs were less likely to be concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance with clinical guidelines was low, even for women with a history of NTDs. Our findings highlight the need for public health programs to inform women to consume folic acid every day before and during pregnancy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".