Effect of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy on gestational hypertension/preeclampsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy on the risk of gestational hypertension/preeclampsia. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched from inception to December 2014. RESULTS: Out of 1224 potentially relevant studies, 13 studies met our inclusion criteria (2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 10 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study). The pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the two RCTs were 0.62 (0.45-0.87) in the trial arm as compared with the placebo arm. The pooled RR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for nine cohort studies with available data on folic acid supplementation in pregnancy and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76-1.02) for eight cohort studies with available data on folic acid supplementation and preeclampsia. CONCLUSION: Whether folic acid supplementation in pregnancy can prevent the occurrence of gestational hypertension/preeclampsia remains uncertain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".