MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390690729 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2307212

Two Randomized Trials of Low-Dose Calcium Supplementation in Pregnancy

2024· article· en· W4390690729 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pratibha Dwarkanath, Alfa Muhihi, Christopher R. Sudfeld, Blair J. Wylie, Molin Wang, Nandita Perumal, Tinku Thomas, Shabani Kinyogoli, Mohamed Bakari, Ryan Fernandez, John-Michael Raj, Ndeniria Swai, Nirmala Buggi, R Shobha, Mary M. Sando, Christopher Duggan, Honorati Masanja, Anura V. Kurpad, Andrea B. Pembe, Wafaie Fawzi

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMassachusetts Medical SocietyNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsCalciumRandomized controlled trialCalcium supplementationPregnancyMedicineObstetricsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends 1500 to 2000 mg of calcium daily as supplementation, divided into three doses, for pregnant persons in populations with low dietary calcium intake in order to reduce the risk of preeclampsia. The complexity of the dosing scheme, however, has led to implementation barriers. METHODS: We conducted two independent randomized trials of calcium supplementation, in India and Tanzania, to assess the noninferiority of a 500-mg daily dose to a 1500-mg daily dose of calcium supplementation. In each trial, the two primary outcomes were preeclampsia and preterm birth, and the noninferiority margins for the relative risks were 1.54 and 1.16, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 11,000 nulliparous pregnant women were included in each trial. The cumulative incidence of preeclampsia was 3.0% in the 500-mg group and 3.6% in the 1500-mg group in the India trial (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.03) and 3.0% and 2.7%, respectively, in the Tanzania trial (relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.36) - findings consistent with the noninferiority of the lower dose in both trials. The percentage of live births that were preterm was 11.4% in the 500-mg group and 12.8% in the 1500-mg group in the India trial (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98), which was within the noninferiority margin of 1.16; in the Tanzania trial, the respective percentages were 10.4% and 9.7% (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.21), which exceeded the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: In these two trials, low-dose calcium supplementation was noninferior to high-dose calcium supplementation with respect to the risk of preeclampsia. It was noninferior with respect to the risk of preterm live birth in the trial in India but not in the trial in Tanzania. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03350516; Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2018/02/012119; and Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority Trials Registry number, TFDA0018/CTR/0010/5).

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207