Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of folic acid supplementation beyond the first trimester on maternal plasma unmetabolised folic acid in late gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Taking folic acid containing supplements prior to and during early pregnancy reduces the risk of neural tube defects. Neural tube defects occur prior to 28 days postconception, after which, there is no proven benefit of continuing to take folic acid. However, many women continue to take folic acid containing supplements throughout the pregnancy. At higher intakes, folic acid is not converted to its active form and accumulates in circulation as unmetabolised folic acid (UMFA). Recently, concerns have been raised about possible links between late gestation folic acid supplementation and childhood allergy, metabolic disease and autism spectrum disorders. We aim to determine if removing folic acid from prenatal micronutrient supplements after 12 weeks gestation reduces circulating levels of maternal UMFA at 36 weeks gestation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-design, double-blinded randomised controlled trial. Women ≥12 and <16 weeks' gestation with a singleton pregnancy and able to give informed consent are eligible to participate. Women (n=100; 50 per group) will be randomised to receive either a micronutrient supplement containing 0.8 mg of folic acid or a micronutrient supplement without folic acid daily from enrolment until delivery. The primary outcome is plasma UMFA concentration at 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include red blood cell folate and total plasma folate concentration. We will assess whether there is a difference in mean UMFA levels at 36 weeks gestation between groups using linear regression with adjustment for baseline UMFA levels and gestational age at trial entry. The treatment effect will be described as a mean difference with 95% CI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted from the Women's and Children's Health Network Research Ethics Committee (HREC/19/WCHN/018). The results of this trial will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001511123.
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.165 | 0.022 |
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".