Effects of Maternal Nutritional Supplements and Dietary Interventions on Placental Complications: An Umbrella Review, Meta-Analysis and Evidence Map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The placenta is a vital, multi-functional organ that acts as an interface between maternal and fetal circulation during pregnancy. Nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy alter placental development and function, leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as pre-eclampsia, infants with small for gestational age and low birthweight, preterm birth, stillbirths and maternal mortality. Maternal nutritional supplementation may help to mitigate the risks, but the evidence base is difficult to navigate. The primary purpose of this umbrella review is to map the evidence on the effects of maternal nutritional supplements and dietary interventions on pregnancy outcomes related to placental disorders and maternal mortality. A systematic search was performed on seven electronic databases, the PROSPERO register and references lists of identified papers. The results were screened in a three-stage process based on title, abstract and full-text by two independent reviewers. Randomized controlled trial meta-analyses on the efficacy of maternal nutritional supplements or dietary interventions were included. There were 91 meta-analyses included, covering 23 types of supplements and three types of dietary interventions. We found evidence that supports supplementary vitamin D and/or calcium, omega-3, multiple micronutrients, lipid-based nutrients, and balanced protein energy in reducing the risks of adverse maternal and fetal health outcomes. However, these findings are limited by poor quality of evidence. Nutrient combinations show promise and support a paradigm shift to maternal dietary balance, rather than single micronutrient deficiencies, to improve maternal and fetal health. The review is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020160887).
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 | 0.025 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".