MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394749730 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae026

Choline in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4394749730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hoan Nguyen, Pande Putu Ida Oktayani, Shin‐Da Lee, Li‐Chi Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Medical University Hospital
KeywordsMedicineCholineOdds ratioPregnancyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisEnvironmental healthObstetricsObstetrics and gynaecologyGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Choline is a critical nutrient. Inadequate choline intake during pregnancy increases the risk of adverse maternal and offspring health. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the current recommendations for choline intake by pregnant women, estimate the overall prevalence of pregnant women with adequate choline intake, and explore associations between maternal choline level and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). METHODS: Choline recommendations for pregnant women were assessed from eight nutrient guidelines of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Asia, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and World Health Organization. Data on the prevalence of pregnant women with adequate choline intake and the association between maternal choline level and APOs were collected from 5 databases up to May 2023. Meta-analyses with random effects and subgroup analyses were performed for the pooled estimate of prevalence and association. RESULTS: Five recent nutrition guidelines from the United States (United States Department of Agriculture), United States (Food and Drug Administration), Canada, Australia, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have emphasized the importance of adequate choline intake for pregnant women. Of 27 publications, 19 articles explored the prevalence and 8 articles explored the association. Meta-analysis of 12 prevalence studies revealed a concerning 11.24% (95% confidence interval, 6.34-17.26) prevalence of pregnant women with adequate choline intake recommendations. A meta-analysis of 6 studies indicated a significant association between high maternal choline levels and a reduced risk of developing APOs, with an odds ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.65). CONCLUSION: The existing guidelines highlight the importance of choline in supporting maternal health and fetal development during pregnancy. Furthermore, a high maternal choline level was likely to be associated with a lower risk of APOs. However, 88.76% of pregnant women do not achieve the optimal choline intake. Therefore, specific policies and actions may be necessary to improve choline intake in pregnant women's care and support the well-being of pregnant women. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CDR42023410561.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207