Maternal folic acid supplementation and infant birthweight in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between maternal folic acid supplementation in pregnancy and infant birthweight has not been well described in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence of the association between folic acid supplementation in pregnancy on three primary outcomes: the incidence of low birthweight, small for gestational age, and mean birthweight. Seventeen studies were identified, which satisfied the inclusion criteria, covering a total of 275,421 women from 13 cohort studies and four randomized controlled trials. For the primary outcome of mean birthweight (n = 9), the pooled mean difference between folic acid and control groups was 0.37 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 0.50), and this effect was larger in the randomized controlled trials (0.56, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.97, n = 3). The pooled odds ratio was 0.59 for low birthweight (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.74, n = 10) among folic acid supplementation versus control. The pooled odds ratio for the association with small for gestational age was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.39 to 1.01, n = 5). Maternal folic acid supplementation in low- and middle-income countries was associated with an increased mean birthweight of infants and decreases in the incidence of low birthweight and small for gestational age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".