Intakes, sources and blood levels of folate in Canadian pregnant women in the post‐fortification era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian pregnant women are exposed to high levels of folate due to periconceptional folic acid (FA) supplementation and mandatory FA fortification, both aimed at reducing the risk of neural tube defects (NTDs). Although there has been a marked decrease in NTD rates, concerns have been raised regarding potential adverse effects of high folate intake during pregnancy on maternal and fetal heath outcomes. At present, there is paucity of data concerning folate intakes and blood levels in Canadian pregnant women in the post‐fortification era. We determined intake levels and sources of folate using a food frequency questionnaire and RBC folate concentrations in 368 pregnant women at 11–16 wks gestation. 85% reported FA supplemental intakes of ≥ 1 mg of which 86% reported daily use. Mean intakes of folate were 320 ± 146 μg/d from natural sources and 162 ± 100 μg/d from fortified foods. The median RBC folate was 2438 nmol/L (1096–4750 nmol/L) with 60% above the previously reported 97 th percentile of RBC folate (2299 nmol/L) in Canadian women of childbearing age. Our data indicates dietary folate intakes in the majority of Canadian pregnant women in the post‐fortification era exceeds the UL for FA. Furthermore, RBC folate levels are in a supraphysiologic range. Future studies are warranted to investigate the impact of high intake and blood folate levels during pregnancy on maternal and fetal health outcomes. Grant Funding Source : CIHR (MOP# 106446)
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".