MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047307073 · doi:10.14288/1.0392610

The effect of once weekly folic acid supplementation on red blood cell folate concentrations in women to determine the potential to prevent neural tube defects

2021· article· en· W3047307073 on OpenAlexaff
Kaitlyn L. I. Samson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolic acidNeural tubeFolic acid supplementationMedicineNeural tube defectFood scienceChemistryInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In populations where the prevalence of anemia is >20% in women of reproductive age, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends weekly supplementation with 60 mg iron and 2.8 mg folic acid as an anemia prevention strategy. Folic acid was included in this weekly supplement not only for anemia prevention, but also to reduce the risk of neural tube defects (NTD) should a woman become pregnant. The dose of folic acid is equivalent to seven times the daily dose of folic acid shown to reduce the risk of NTDs in controlled trials (0.4 mg x 7 days = 2.8 mg). However, the majority of currently-used weekly supplements contain 0.4 mg of folic acid (the daily recommended dose in pregnancy). There is a lack of evidence to support if a weekly 2.8 mg dose of folic acid is more effective at raising red blood cell (RBC) folate concentrations to a level associated with a reduced risk of NTD (>748 nmol/L) than the current practice of weekly 0.4 mg folic acid. In this three-arm randomized controlled trial, we randomized n=331 non-pregnant Malaysian women (18-45 y) to receive 60 mg iron and either 2.8, 0.4, or 0 mg folic acid. RBC and plasma folate were measured at baseline, 16 weeks, and 4 weeks after the discontinuation of the intervention. Following 16 weeks of intervention, the primary outcome of mean RBC folate in the 2.8 mg folic acid per week group was significantly higher than the 0.4 mg and 0 mg groups [mean difference (95% CI) 271 (234, 309) and 355 (316, 394) nmol/L, respectively (P<0.0001)]. Mean plasma folate in the 2.8 mg group was also higher than the 0.4 mg and 0 mg groups [mean difference (95% CI) 14.9 (12.0, 17.8) and 19.6 (16.9, 22.4) nmol/L, respectively (P<0.0001)]. At 20 weeks, mean plasma and RBC folate were still significantly higher in the 2.8 mg group than the 0.4 mg and 0 mg groups (P<0.0001). This trial provides evidence to justify the use of the WHO recommended dose of 2.8 mg folic acid in weekly iron folic acid supplements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicFolate and B Vitamins Research→French-language works237,207→