The upper level: examining the risk of excess micronutrient intake in pregnancy from antenatal supplements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micronutrient deficiencies are prevalent and co-occurring among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). To prevent and treat deficiencies, antenatal vitamin and mineral supplements are the most common interventions during gestation. With most micronutrients, there can be health risks when intake regularly exceeds a high amount, and an upper threshold value set by the United States and Canada, the World Health Organization, and other groups is commonly called an upper intake level (UL). This review summarizes what is known about risks in pregnancy when ULs are exceeded and assesses the potential risk of exceeding the UL if a pregnant woman is taking a multiple micronutrient supplement. Overall, there is limited information on pregnancy-specific risks from excess intake. When assuming high dietary intake plus the amount in a standard multiple micronutrient supplement (with 30 mg of iron), only niacin and iron would be expected to slightly exceed the UL. Known risks for this level intake for each nutrient are transient and mild.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".