Dietary supplement use and iron, zinc and folate intake in pregnant women in London, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined the dietary intake of iron, zinc and folate, estimated from both food and supplement sources, in 2019 pregnant women who participated in the Prenatal Health Project (PHP). The PHP recruited pregnant women from ultrasound clinics in London, Ontario, in the years 2002-2005. METHODS: Participants completed a telephone survey, which included a food frequency questionnaire and questions on dietary supplement use. Frequencies of use of dietary supplements were generated. Nutrient intake values were estimated from food and supplement sources, and summed to calculate total daily intake values. RESULTS: Most women took a multivitamin supplement, and many women took folic acid and iron supplements; however, one-fifth of the sample did not take any supplements providing any of the three micronutrients. Despite being of a higher socio-economic status overall, significant proportions of the cohort ranked below the recommended dietary allowance values for iron, zinc, and folate. This suggests there may be other barriers that impact dietary practices. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required on how to better promote supplement use and a healthy diet 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".