Maternal folic acid and multivitamin supplementation: International clinical evidence with considerations for the prevention of folate-sensitive birth defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More evidence is available for maternal intake, absorption, distribution, tissue specific concentrations, and pregnancy outcomes with folic acid (fortification/supplementation) during preconception - first trimester. This Quality Improvement prevention review used expert guidelines/opinions, systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational case control/case series studies, published in English, from 1990 to August 2021. Optimization for an oral maternal folic acid supplementation is difficult because it relies on folic acid dose, type of folate supplement, bio-availability of the folate from foods, timing of supplementation initiation, maternal metabolism/genetic factors, and many other factors. There is continued use of high dose pre-food fortification 'RCT evidenced-based' folic acid supplementation for NTD recurrence pregnancy prevention. Innovation requires preconception and pregnancy use of 'carbon one nutrient' supplements (folic acid, vitamin B12, B6, choline), using the appropriate evidence, need to be considered. The consideration and adoption of directed personalized approaches for maternal complex risk could use serum folate testing for supplementation dosing choice. Routine daily folic acid dosing for low-risk women should consider a multivitamin with 0.4 mg of folic acid starting 3 months prior to conception until completion of breastfeeding. Routine folic acid dosing or preconception measurement of maternal serum folate (after 4-6 weeks of folate supplementation) could be considered for maternal complex risk group with genetic/medical/surgical co-morbidities. These new approaches for folic acid oral supplementation are required to optimize benefit (decreasing folate sensitive congenital anomalies; childhood morbidity) and minimizing potential maternal and childhood risk.
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 | 0.041 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".