Women in Canada are consuming above the upper intake level of folic acid but few are meeting dietary choline recommendations in the second trimester of pregnancy: data from the CHILD cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is concern that during a low-risk pregnancy, women are consuming more than recommended (400 µg/day) supplemental folic acid and may not meet recommendations for other nutrients. The objective of this study was to determine folic acid supplement use and dietary folate intakes in the second trimester (week 18) of pregnancy in women ( n = 2996) in the Canadian CHILD cohort study. Vitamin B12 and choline intakes were also assessed because they are metabolically related to folate. The majority of participants (71.6%) were consuming a daily prenatal supplement. Twenty-eight percent of women ( n = 847) reported consuming a folic acid supplement and of these women, 45.3% had daily supplemental folic acid intakes above the upper intake level (UL; 1000 µg/day). Daily dietary folate intakes were (mean (SD)) 575 (235) DFE µg/day. In contrast, only 24.8% of women met the dietary choline adequate intake (AI) recommendation (AI ≥ 450 mg/day) with a mean (SD) intake of 375 (151) mg/day. Further understanding of the impact of supplemental folic acid intake above the UL and low choline intake during pregnancy requires further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".