Maternal Diet Quality and Multivitamin Intake During Pregnancy Interact in the Association with Offspring Neurodevelopment at 2 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To comprehensively evaluate the interaction between diet quality and multivitamin intake during pregnancy on offspring neurodevelopment. Methods: This analysis was grounded in mother-child dyads from the 3D Cohort Study in Quebec, Canada. Among the 2366 participants initially enrolled in the 3D study, 1535 women successfully completed the 3-day food record during 20–24 weeks of gestation. A Canadian adaptation of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI-C) 2010 was used to quantify diet quality. The total HEI-C score was dichotomized into low and high diet quality by median split. Cognitive and motor development in childhood were assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). Language abilities were measured using the toddler short-form version of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MCDI) questionnaire, administered in either English or French. After excluding participants with missing covariate data, cognitive, motor, and language development scores at 2 years of age were available for 1066, 1040, and 981 children, respectively. Multiple linear regression models were employed to calculate adjusted effect estimates. The interaction on an additive scale was assessed by incorporating a product term into the linear regression model. Results: Statistically significant interactions were detected between diet quality and multivitamin intake in relation to the cognitive and language development outcomes of the offspring (interaction p-values were 0.018 and 0.023, respectively). The lowest cognitive and language scores were observed in the group of women who neither took multivitamins nor maintained a high-quality diet. Among women not taking multivitamins, a high-quality diet was associated with improved offspring cognitive and language scores (mean difference [95% CI] = 4.2 [0.1, 8.2], p = 0.04; and 11.3 [3.1, 19.5], p = 0.01, respectively). However, among women taking multivitamins, no such associations were identified. Conversely, in participants with a low-quality diet, multivitamin intake was associated with a 3.0-point increase in cognitive composite scores (95% CI: 0.3, 5.8, p = 0.03), but this was not the case for those with a high-quality diet. No statistically significant interactions were observed between maternal diet quality and multivitamin intake for motor development outcomes. Conclusions: Adequate nutritional supply during pregnancy, achieved either through a high-quality diet or multivitamin supplementation, is fundamental for the neurodevelopment of children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".