DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf129 Risk of Gestational Hypertension in Relation to Folic Acid Supplementation during Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigated the association between folic acid supplementation and gestational hypertension. The study population included women with nonmalformed infants in the United States and Canada who were participating in the Slone Epidemiology Center Birth Defects Study between 1993 and 2000. Women were interviewed within 6 months after delivery about sociodemographic and medical factors, the occurrence of hypertension with or without preeclampsia, and multivitamin use in pregnancy. Relative risks, adjusted for weight, parity, twin pregnancy, diabetes, smoking, education, and family income, were estimated using Cox regression models. Of 2,100 women, 204 (9.7%) reported gestational hypertension (onset after the 20th week of gestation). The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of developing gestational hypertension during the month after folic acid supplementation, compared with not using folic acid during that same month, was 0.55 (95 % confidence interval: 0.39, 0.79). This finding suggests that folic acid-containing multivitamins may reduce the risk of gestational hypertension. folic acid; hypertension; pre-eclampsia; pregnancy; vitamins Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk. Preeclampsia, clinically recognized by hypertension and proteinuria, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.027 |
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".