Follow‐Up of Children Born to Mothers in Folic Acid Clinical Trial (<scp>FACT</scp> 4 Child): A Prospective Cohort Study Based on a Double‐Blinded Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: weeks of gestation and continued until delivery, on social impairments associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders, deficiencies in executive function, and emotional and behavioural problems in children. DESIGN: FACT 4 Child is a follow-up of mothers and their children born during the Folic Acid Clinical Trial (FACT), an international multi-centre double-blinded randomised trial to assess the effect of high-dose folic acid supplementation on preventing preeclampsia in women with increased risk. SETTING: Multi-centre international follow-up study. POPULATION: Mothers and their children enrolled in FACT, among them 664 completed the follow-up. METHODS: Mothers reported on social and executive function and emotional and behavioural problems in their children aged 4-9 years using standardised, validated questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME: The proportion of children with at least one score > 1.5 SD above expected mean. RESULTS: Among 319 children in the intervention group, 43 (13.5%) had a score in the elevated range, compared with 51/345 (14.8%) in the placebo group (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.33; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: In children born to women at risk for preeclampsia, rates of neurodevelopmental outcomes were not different between high-dose folic acid and control groups in this study. Our finding suggests that a high dose of folic acid supplementation may not be needed in pregnant women with increased risk. A larger-scale study is needed to determine neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with different dosages and timing of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".