MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550015617 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000032

Energy and protein intake in pregnancy

2003· review· en· W1550015617 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Kramer, Ritsuko Kakuma

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalPregnancyBirth weightObstetricsOdds ratioWeight gainGestational ageGestationFetusRelative riskRandomized controlled trialChildbirthSmall for gestational ageInternal medicineBody weightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gestational weight gain is positively associated with fetal growth, and observational studies of food supplementation in pregnancy have reported increases in gestational weight gain and fetal growth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to increase or reduce energy or protein intake, or of actual energy or protein supplementation or restriction, during pregnancy on energy and protein intakes, gestational weight gain, and the outcome of pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (October 2002) and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Acceptably controlled trials of dietary advice to increase or reduce energy or protein intake, or of actual energy or protein supplementation or restriction, during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by the authors from published reports, and supplemented by additional information from trialists contacted by the authors. MAIN RESULTS: In five trials involving 1134 women, nutritional advice to increase energy and protein intakes was successful in achieving those goals, but no consistent benefit was observed on pregnancy outcomes. In 13 trials involving 4665 women, balanced energy/protein supplementation was associated with modest increases in maternal weight gain and in mean birth weight, and a substantial reduction in risk of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth. These effects did not appear greater in undernourished women. No significant effects were detected on preterm birth, but significantly reduced risks were observed for stillbirth and neonatal death. In two trials involving 1076 women, high-protein supplementation was associated with a small, nonsignificant increase in maternal weight gain but a nonsignificant reduction in mean birthweight, a significantly increased risk of SGA birth, and a nonsignificantly increased risk of neonatal death. In 3 trials involving 966 women, isocaloric protein supplementation was also associated with an increased risk of SGA birth. In three trials involving 384 women, energy/protein restriction of pregnant women who were overweight or exhibited high weight gain significantly reduced weekly maternal weight gain and mean birth weight but had no effect on pregnancy-induced hypertension or pre-eclampsia. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Dietary advice appears effective in increasing pregnant women's energy and protein intakes but is unlikely to confer major benefits on infant or maternal health. Balanced energy/protein supplementation improves fetal growth and may reduce the risk of fetal and neonatal death. High-protein or balanced protein supplementation alone is not beneficial and may be harmful to the infant.Protein/energy restriction of pregnant women who are overweight or exhibit high weight gain is unlikely to be beneficial and may be harmful to the infant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations426
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207