Fetal DHA inadequacy and the impact on child neurodevelopment: a follow-up of a randomised trial of maternal DHA supplementation in pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DHA is an important component of neural lipids accumulating in neural tissue during development. Inadequate DHA in gestation may compromise infant development, but it is unknown whether there are lasting effects. We sought to determine whether the observed effects of fetal DHA inadequacy on infant development persist into early childhood. This follow-up study assessed children (5-6 years) whose mothers received 400 mg/d DHA or a placebo during pregnancy. Child neurodevelopment was assessed with several age-appropriate tests including the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. A risk-reduction model was used whereby the odds that a child from the maternal placebo group would fail to achieve a test score in the top quartile was calculated. The association of maternal DHA intake and status in gestation with child test scores, as well as with child DHA intake and status, was also determined. No differences were detected in children (n 98) from the maternal placebo and DHA groups achieving a high neurodevelopment test score (P>0·05). However, maternal DHA status was positively related to child performance on some tests including language and short-term memory. Furthermore, child DHA intake and status were related to the mother's intake and status in gestation. The neurodevelopment effects of fetal DHA inadequacy may have been lost or masked by other variables in the children. Although we provide evidence that maternal DHA status is related to child cognitive performance, the association of maternal and child DHA intake and status limits the interpretation of whether DHA before or after birth is important.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".