MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309608537 · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.1000532

Relationship between maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy and risk of childhood asthma: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4309608537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fushuang Yang, Jinpu Zhu, Zhongtian Wang, Lei Wang, Tianhui Tan, Liping Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaPregnancyMeta-analysisOdds ratioConfidence intervalSubgroup analysisCohort studyCochrane LibraryPediatricsObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing evidence suggests that maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy may be associated with the risk of childhood asthma, but these findings remain controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy and the risk of childhood asthma, and to determine the safe dose of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy based on a dose-response analysis to lower the risk of childhood asthma. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies published before April 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies, and a fixed-effect model was employed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of asthma with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In addition, the generalized least-squares trend (GLST) was used to explore a nonlinear dose-response relationship. Stata 15.0 was used for the statistical analysis mentioned above. This systematic review included 18 studies (13 cohort studies, 5 case-control studies) with a total of 252,770 participants, 50,248 of whom were children with asthma. The meta-analysis showed that maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy was significantly associated with the risk of childhood asthma (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.04–1.11). The subgroup analysis revealed a significant correlation between the risk of childhood asthma and the folic acid supplementation in the first Trimester (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.05–1.12), the third Trimester (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04–1.26) and the whole pregnancy (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.10–1.16). At the same time, the dose-response analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between maternal folic acid intake during pregnancy and the risk of childhood asthma. The risk of asthma in children significantly increased when maternal folic acid intake reached 581 μg/day. This meta-analysis showed that maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy increased the risk of asthma in children. Based on the results of the dose-response analysis, less than 580 μg folic acid per day is advised in order to effectively prevent birth defects without increasing the risk of childhood asthma. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022332140 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.037
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207