Folic Acid Supplementation Improves Glycemic Control for Diabetes Prevention and Management: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing interest in the considerable benefits of dietary supplementations, such as folic acid, on the glycemic profile. We aimed to investigate the effects of folic acid supplementation on glycemic control markers in adults. Methods: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of folic acid supplementation on glycemic control markers published up to March 2021 were detected by searching online databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and ISI web of science, using a combination of related keywords. Mean change and standard deviation (SD) of the outcome measures were used to estimate the mean difference between the intervention and control groups at follow-up. Meta-regression and non-linear dose-response analysis were conducted to evaluate the association between pooled effect size and folic acid dosage (mg/day) and duration of the intervention (week). From 1814 detected studies, twenty-four studies reported fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting insulin, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) as an outcome measure. Results: Results revealed significant reductions in FBG (weighted mean difference (WMD): −2.17 mg/dL, 95% CI: −3.69, −0.65, p = 0.005), fasting insulin (WMD: −1.63 pmol/L, 95% CI: −2.53, −0.73, p < 0.001), and HOMA-IR (WMD: −0.40, 95% CI: −0.70, −0.09, p = 0.011) following folic acid supplementation. No significant effect was detected for HbA1C (WMD: −0.27%, 95% CI: −0.73, 0.18, p = 0.246). The dose-response analysis showed that folic acid supplementation significantly changed HOMA-IR (r = −1.30, p-nonlinearity = 0.045) in non-linear fashion. However, meta-regression analysis did not indicate a linear relationship between dose, duration, and absolute changes in FBG, HOMA-IR, and fasting insulin concentrations. Conclusions: Folic acid supplementation significantly reduces some markers of glycemic control in adults. These reductions were small, which may limit clinical applications for adults with type II diabetes. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".