Unmetabolized folic acid in human milk: Impact of folate supplementation during lactation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Folic acid (FA) supplementation of healthy lactating women produces an increase in blood folate levels without a concomitant increase in milk folate content. No data are available on the effect of supplemental 5‐methyltetrahydrofolate (5‐MTHF) on milk folate concentrations. The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of 5‐MTHF with that of an equimolar dose of FA on milk concentrations of total folate, folate binding protein (FBP), and unmetabolized FA in a group of well‐nourished, lactating women consuming folic acid fortified foods. In this study, 69 lactating women were randomly assigned to 5‐MTHF (416 μg/d) or placebo, or assigned to receive FA (400 μg/d) within 1 wk of delivery. At 16 wk pp, total milk folate concentrations and milk FBP did not differ among the 3 groups nor did the proportion of unmetabolized milk FA. Unmetabolized FA was detected in 96% of milk samples representing approximately 8% of milk folate. While milk FBP were correlated with milk folate concentrations (r = 0.49, P < 0.0001), FBP levels (mean ± SD, 41.8 ± 14.7 nmol/L) were much lower than we have previously reported prior to folic acid fortification. In conclusion, 5‐MTHF supplementation proved to be comparable to FA in its effect on milk folate. Furthermore, the presence of unmetabolized FA in milk suggests the transfer of unaltered FA from maternal plasma to milk even for those women consuming folic acid from fortified foods alone. Sponsored by Merck KgGa, Darmstadt, Germany & NSERC of Canada
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".