Association Between Maternal Iodine Intake in Pregnancy and Childhood Neurodevelopment at Age 18 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are limited and inconsistent data suggesting that mild iodine deficiency in pregnancy might be associated with poorer developmental outcomes in children. Between 2011 and 2015, we conducted a prospective cohort study in Australia examining the relationship between maternal iodine intake in pregnancy and childhood neurodevelopment, assessed using Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III), in 699 children at 18 months. Maternal iodine intake and urinary iodine concentration (UIC) were assessed at study entry (<20 weeks' gestation) and at 28 weeks' gestation. Maternal iodine intake in the lowest (<220 μg/day) or highest (≥391 μg/day) quartile was associated with lower cognitive, language, and motor scores (mean differences ranged from 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01, 4.8) to 7.0 (95% CI: 2.8, 11.1) points lower) and higher odds (odds ratios ranged from 2.7 (95% CI: 1.3, 5.6) to 2.8 (95% CI: 1.3, 5.7)) of cognitive developmental delay (Bayley-III score <1 SD) compared with mothers with an iodine intake in the middle quartiles. There was no association between UIC in pregnancy and Bayley-III outcomes regardless of whether UIC and the outcomes were analyzed as continuous or categorical variables. Both low and high iodine intakes in pregnancy were associated with poorer childhood neurodevelopment in this iodine-sufficient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".