Prenatal Vitamin B12 and Children’s Brain Development and Cognitive, Language and Motor Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adequate maternal nutrient intake of vitamin B12 is critical to fetal brain development and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to map the current state of knowledge from human epidemiological studies on the associations between maternal vitamin B12 during pregnancy and children's brain, cognitive, language, and motor development to identify gaps in the literature and suggest directions for future research. PubMed and OVID MEDLINE were searched. Search terms were vitamin B12, prenatal or maternal, neurodevelopment or cognitive development or brain. Animal studies were excluded. In total, 148 publications were identified, of which 19 met our inclusion criteria: (1) maternal vitamin B12 assessed via a measure of status, dietary intake, supplementation, or deficiency; and (2) an outcome related to brain development or cognitive, language, or motor development in children less than 18 years of age was assessed. This scoping review suggests that evidence supporting a relationship between maternal vitamin B12 during pregnancy and children's neurodevelopmental outcomes is inconclusive. Further longitudinal research is needed to clarify the effects of maternal vitamin B12 supplementation, status, and intake on children's brain development and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".