A lifestyle intervention of weight-gain restriction: diet and exercise in obese women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether a weight-gain restriction regimen, with or without exercise, would impact glycemic control, pregnancy outcome, and total pregnancy weight gain in obese subjects with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A total of 96 subjects with GDM met the inclusion criteria and were sequentially recruited, with 39 subjects self-enrolled in the exercise and diet (ED) group, and the remaining 57 subjects self-enrolled in the diet (D) group owing to contraindications or a lack of personal preference to exercise. All patients were provided a eucaloric or hypocaloric consistent carbohydrate meal plan and instructed in the self-monitoring of blood glucose. In addition, all ED subjects were prescribed an exercise routine equivalent to a 60% symptom-limited VO2 max. Subjects were followed at weekly or biweekly office visits. Results showed maternal weight and body mass index (35.2+/-7.2 (ED) vs. 33.5+/-9.2 (D)) at study entry as well as number of weeks into the study (7.7+/-5.7 (ED) vs. 9.4+/-4.7 (D)) were similar in both the ED and D groups. Weight gain per week was significantly lower in the ED group than in the D group (0.1+/-0.4 kg vs. 0.3+/-0.4 kg; p<0.05). Subjects (either ED or D) who gained weight had a higher percentage of macrosomic infants than those subjects who lost weight or had no weight change during pregnancy. Other pregnancy and fetal outcomes such as complications, gestational age at delivery, and rate of cesarean delivery were similar in both groups. Conclusions of this study were that caloric restriction and exercise result in limited weight gain in obese subjects with GDM, less macrosomic neonates, and no adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy is an ideal time for behaviour modification, and this intervention may also help promote long-term healthy lifestyle changes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".