Comparison of national gestational weight gain guidelines and energy intake recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although data showing adverse effects with high and low gestational weight gain (GWG) come from a large number of countries, a variety of guidelines about the GWG exist. Our objectives were to compare existing GWG and energy recommendations across various countries, as well as the rationale or evidence on which they were based. We used the United Nations' Human Developmental Index to determine the ranking of the country to ensure broad sampling and then searched for guidelines. We first searched the national government websites, and if necessary searched Medline and EMBASE, Global Health databases, and bibliographies of published articles for both guidelines and the studies on which they were based. We found guidelines for 31% of the countries, and 59% of these had a GWG recommendation, 68% had an energy intake recommendation (EIR), and 36% had both. About half of the GWG guidelines are similar to the 2009 American Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and 73% of the EIRs are similar to the 2006 IOM. Despite the documented relationship between both high GWG and adverse outcomes for women and infants and low GWG and adverse outcomes in infants, there are a wide variety of guidelines for GWG and energy recommendations by different countries around the world.
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 | 0.023 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".