MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1631011722 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2012-0352

Maternal dietary intake during pregnancy has longstanding consequences for the health of her offspring

2013· review· en· W1631011722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan J. Wood‐Bradley, Sarah Henry, Amanda Vrselja, Victoria Newman, James A. Armitage

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringPregnancyMicronutrientDiseaseMedicinePhysiologyFetusEndocrinologyEnvironmental healthBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 100 years, advances in pharmaceutical and medical technology have reduced the burden of communicable disease, and our appreciation of the mechanisms underlying the development of noncommunicable disease has broadened. During this time, a number of studies, both in humans and animal models, have highlighted the importance of maintaining an optimal diet during pregnancy. In particular, a number of studies support the hypothesis that suboptimal maternal protein and fat intake during pregnancy can have long-term effects on the growing fetus, and increase the likelihood of these offspring developing cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic diseases in adulthood. More recently, it has been shown that dietary intake of a number of micronutrients may offset or reverse the deleterious effects of macronutrient imbalance. Furthermore, maternal fat intake has also been identified as a major contributor to a healthy fetal environment, with a beneficial role for unsaturated fats during development as well as a beneficial impact on cell membrane physiology. Together these studies indicate that attempts to optimise maternal nutrition may prove to be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for preventing the development of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207